On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 2/8/2014 11:00 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>wrote: > >> Constrainable was designed around gUM, and it has not been proven to have >> general application. Quite the contrary, we keep finding evidence it is >> specific to gUM. >> >> Evidence: >> - Mandatory constraints don't make sense when there's no permission >> prompt. >> - applyConstraints() pattern is only necessary when sharing resources. >> - No other applications. >> >> To repeat: Constrainable is only warranted when you're sharing resources >> behind a permission prompt. Sound general? >> > > For the record, I don't believe agree with these statements. > > There are plenty of reasons why one would wish to have mandatory API > points, not just for things behind a permissions promot. > > > Avoiding the permission prompt is what necessitates building the intent > missile. Without that problem, it is much simpler and natural to ask, look > at what you get and reject it, like roc says. Mandatory constraints, with > their WebIDL headaches and confusing semantics favoring a non-webby > fail-first approach [0], would not have survived discussion without the > permission prompt problem. > Yes, I realize this is your opinion. I don't expect to convince you nor do I expect you to convince me. That's why I will simply note for the record (and to the extent the chairs are gauging consensus) that I disagree with this position. -Ekr > .: Jan-Ivar :. > > [0] aka ungraceful degradation - to borrow from roc's excellent post > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2014Feb/0039.html > >
Received on Saturday, 8 February 2014 20:21:27 UTC