W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Conclusions from the constraints spec review

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 06:53:05 +0100
Message-ID: <52F9BAC1.5020506@alvestrand.no>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 02/11/2014 06:08 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 10 February 2014 19:24, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>> I don't find the ask-inspect-reject pattern either simpler or more natural.
> I think that you are misinterpreting here.  The point was that without
> a user-prompt, we could just make the device parameters available to
> the application.  The application could peruse the menu and determine
> if anything suited it.
> Now, I don't like where this is going.  I don't feel like we'd be
> doing anyone a favour if the permissions prompt were to disappear.
> That said, I could certainly see my way to having more information
> available to an application.
> That doesn't help much with the whole contention resolution problem.
> But I'm increasingly of the opinion that sharing control of a device
> is foolish.  Sharing access, perhaps, but I'm not sure who wins when
> control is shared.
> Meta-comment: Where the hell is this discussion going?  We were
> talking about mandatory restrictions, and now it's veered into user
> consent land again.  I don't feel like any actual progress is being
> made in any direction.  At least it started with something
> approximating a concrete proposal.
It started out with a review of the current proposal for the writeup of
the constraint mechanism. So far, we've had a lot of discussion (mainly
among J-I, roc and myself) about whether it's worth abstracting that
away from the use case it was originally created for (getUserMedia,
where I think we have rough consensus to keep it more or less exactly
as-is), and whether it makes sense to extend usage to other areas, but
very little comment that is useful to the editors on the proposal itself.

Thus far, I don't see a reason to make any change to the document (the
text that's actually in the document) based on this discussion.

-- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 05:53:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:24 UTC