- From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 16:11:07 -0500
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.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 11/5/13 1:54 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > 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. Sure http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2013Sep/0080.html .: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2013 21:11:40 UTC