Fwd: RfC: Wide review of Wake Lock API; deadline August 31st

Anyone on public-privacy interested in taking the lead on a privacy review of Wake Lock over the next 6 weeks?

This is highlighted for WebAppSec folks, but it might also be relevant to this and other specs on privacy:
> proposed approach to manage permissions to use the Wake Lock API, whereby an embedded cross-origin browsing context is never allowed, as described in the first note in section 5.

How permissions are handled for embedded contexts seems to be a frequently-arising issue.
—Nick

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
> Subject: RfC: Wide review of Wake Lock API; deadline August 31st
> Date: July 11, 2016 at 5:41:07 PM PT
> Cc: public-review-announce@w3.org, Chairs Chairs <chairs@w3.org>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
> Resent-From: public-review-announce@w3.org
> Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/93AD5CF1-197D-43EF-B201-9633DFF718F0@fjhirsch.com>
> 
> Dear Chairs of APA WG, PING, WebAppSec WG, Web Platform WG, TAG, CSS WG, Web Perf WG:
> 
> The Device & Sensors Working Group is soliciting the review of your groups on the Wake Lock API on our way to Candidate Recommendation status:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/wake-lock/
> 
> From APA, PING and WebAppSec, we hope to get a review from an accessibility, privacy and security perspective of the specification.
> 
> We particularly call upon the attention of the WebAppSec WG on the proposed approach to manage permissions to use the Wake Lock API, whereby an embedded cross-origin browsing context is never allowed, as described in the first note in section 5.
> 
> For both WebAppSec and PING, we note that the group used the self-review questionnaire in the development of this specification:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2016Mar/att-0038/00-part
> 
> From WebPlatform and TAG, we hope to get a review of the overall API and its insertion in the rest of the platform.
> 
> Since the API extends the Screen interface defined by the CSS WG in the CSSOM View module, the CSS WG might wish to confirm this extension is in-line with the design of the interface.
> 
> Likewise, since the API relies on the Page Visibility state defined by the WebPerf WG, that group might wish to comment on the proper usage of that signal.
> 
> Reviews from other groups are also naturally welcome.
> 
> We would appreciate to receive your feedback before the end of August; the preferred method for feedback is to file issues in our github repository:  https://github.com/w3c/wake-lock/issues ;
> 
> alternatively, send a mail to our public mailing list public-device-apis@w3.org with a subject prefixed with [wake-lock].
> 
> Thank you
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Device & Sensors Working Group Chair
> 
> @fjhirsch