- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:54:42 -0800
- To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
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