- From: Jim Barnett <1jhbarnett@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 15:01:55 -0400
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Didn't we have discussions in the past about 're-hydrating' sessions upon page reload? I don't think the discussions ever got anywhere, but it certainly sounded at the time like we were assuming that the app could keep using the device without an additional prompt. I think Harald is right that users won't expect to be reprompted after a page reload. It may well be that the security issues that ekr has raised means that they must be, but I think that they will be surprised/annoyed when it happens. (Along the lines of: "I already told you that you could use the camera. I just reloaded the page because the video was looking weird now you throw everything out and ask me a question that I already answered.") On 6/2/2014 2:51 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 2 June 2014 09:42, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: >> The WG has repeatedly rejected having more API surface to manipulating >> permissions, so "getUserMedia" and "track.close" are the two controls we >> have; my proposal would be making the last one a no-op, permission-wise. > Yes, I object to this. > > I think that this more easily leads to the surprising situation where you can: > > a) have the camera turn on at some future point in time > > and perhaps more seriously: > > b) have a different camera turn on > > Both of which I find highly objectionable. > > I understand that you would have the "passive" indicator present for > the duration, but that's still pretty surprising. > > I need to understand how you might need this capability. I understood > Justin's mute scenario well enough. Can you actually make a case for > this? > > --Martin > > p.s., track.close() releasing permissions is a perfectly good API > surface. Why would you suggest that we need a different surface? > -- Jim Barnett Genesys
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 19:02:37 UTC