- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:27:23 +0000
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 30/11/15 08:54, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > Den 30. nov. 2015 08:48, skrev Stefan Håkansson LK: >> This looks quite good IMO. >> >> But, for microphone and camera permissions, would it not make sense to >> have a list of devideIds? For the situation where the UA has stored >> permissions (for this origin) to use camera A and B but not C? >> >> (Slightly different from all-cameras). > > My reading of the permissions model is that if a permission is qualified > by an ID, each different ID value turns the permisison into a different > permission. I think you are right. > > So if there existed 3 cameras A, B and C, I have permissions to camera A > and B, I would have the permissions "camera A" and "camera B", and there > would exist a permission "camera C" that I did not have. What would happen if you called navigator.permissions.query without supplying a deviceId? E.g. navigator.permissions.query({name:'camera'}) > > The point of "all-cameras" would be to say "I have permission to use > camera A, B and C, and if camera D is plugged in, I will have permission > to use that too". > > I hope someone can verify that they read the permissions doc the same > way (or not). > >> >> Stefan >> >> On 16/11/15 21:42, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >>> I tried to think a bit about how I would formalize the permissions model >>> we have designed for WebRTC in terms of the permissions API's >>> permissions model. >>> >>> After a while, it seemed to make sense, and I'd like to share it to see >>> if it makes sense to others. >>> >>> The Google doc is here: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13c4hTlm2XgVYpxfGL1a8fcvI1CAUdIgd662DfElk_ow/edit#heading=h.fb7kn49jp9ff >>> >>> Anyone with the link should be able to comment, if you want to comment >>> off-list. >>> >>> The content is attached as PDF, which may be more accessible to some >>> (and is certainly more archivable). >>> >>> Questions to ask: >>> >>> - Is this something worth doing? >>> - If yes: Is this something that should be part of our core docs, a >>> separate doc, part of the permissions doc, or in some "other" category? >>> - Where did I go wrong? >>> >>> Comments welcome! >>> >>> Harald >>> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 30 November 2015 08:27:57 UTC