W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > February 2016

Re: [mediacapture-main] Pull Request: Extend iframe with a new allowusermedia attribute (issue: #268)

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:13:58 +0000
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B3747FAE4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 09/02/16 12:27, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Den 08. feb. 2016 04:20, skrev Martin Thomson:
>> On 6 February 2016 at 01:35, Stefan Håkansson LK
>> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>> This seems mostly in line with PR #313.
>> I agree, but #313 has the same problems as this proposal in that it
>> breaks sites.
>> And I would be opposed to adding an attribute that we'd have to
>> support indefinitely if there is a good chance that we'll have to add
>> an attribute with similar, if not identical, properties.
>> Since this is a very late change to functionality, I want to make sure
>> that everyone is OK with the change.  That includes users of the API
>> especially.
> My read is that #313 is in concordance with the "floating proposal" (to
> require permission at top level only), and is absolutely necessary in
> order for the "floating proposal" to be viable (otherwise, the "floating
> proposal" would automatically grant permission to all nested iframes, no
> dialogue needed - which would be a privacy disaster).

It is in concordance with "floating proposal", but the later proposes a 
different way (than #313) for the parent origin to declare what 
permissions the iframe can request:

<iframe id="embedee" src="..." permissions="geolocation notifications 

I am confused about where the "floating proposal" is discussed though. 
There is nothing said about it in the WebAppsSec list, I find nothing 
anywhere in the WebPlatform WG or the WhatWG spaces either.

> So I see #313 as a Good Thing to merge - it makes the "floating
> proposal" feasible, because all the pages that would have to be broken
> under the "floating proposal" are already broken by #313.

I also think it makes sense to merge, but we should probably add a note 
saying that discussion is ongoing and this particular feature may change.

> (ObIrrelevantAside: #313 is the number of Donald Duck's car. I'm not
> sure what inferences we can draw from that.)
> Harald

Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2016 12:14:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:35 UTC