Re: Proposed new text for noaccess

On 5 November 2013 08:38, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote:
> In my mind, a 'noaccess' stream and a stream awaiting user-permissions are
> similar and could work the same:

I'm thinking now that offering the ability to construct streams and
tracks attached to any source, without user interaction, is going to
work.  That would have to cause the tracks to gain the properties of a
"noaccess" track.  At that point, I agree that the UA can render (or
not) those streams however it chooses.  gUM is used to elevate access
to peeridentity or unconstrained.

With respect to the light coming on, I note that Firefox offers a way
to revoke access to plugins on pages.  Maybe that shows that there is
a way out here.  If you don't like the light coming on when you visit
google.com, revoke access when it first happens and never see it
again.

BTW, I didn't find your other email.  Archive links are far more
reliable than times.  That said, I don't think that any of the options
offered ended up with double-permissions-dialog problems.

Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2013 18:55:09 UTC