- From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
- Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 20:56:16 +1000
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, at 04:55, Marcos Caceres wrote: > 2. The API should probably be restricted to the top-level browsing > context (don't want random advertisements in an iframe keeping the screen > on, for example). As far as observing is concerned, I would guess this > one doesn't matter - just trying to point out that setting behaviour is > contextual. I disagree. We should allow iframes to use the wakelock api. Embedders can prevent this to happen via the sandbox attribute. On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, at 08:44, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Why? Just assume that if your lock instance hasn't been granted, that > the screen isn't locked. It seems that the main difference between your proposal and Marcos' is that you don't want caller A requesting a wake lock having a side effect on caller B requesting a wake lock. In other words, A and B can't be aware of each other. That means that you do not expect to have a global place to check if the screen has a wake lock applying to it, right? It sounds reasonable and not having side effects would probably simplify the API. -- Mounir
Received on Monday, 1 September 2014 10:56:39 UTC