RE: MIME type; except/permit naming

I'm not sure what revoke you are referring to. We have support for the remove methods (for example: You can also delete exceptions in the Settings dialog. We don't have granular deletion in the UI yet (that's a lot of work and it's not clear that it is worth doing until there is more adoption).

From: Mike O'Neill []
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 1:47 AM
To: 'Nicholas Doty'; Adrian Bateman
Subject: RE: MIME type; except/permit naming

Sure, the confusion it causes can be got round so leave it as it is. And it is good we have an implementing UA (though it has not got the revoke in yet).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Doty []
> Sent: 09 April 2014 04:00
> To: Adrian Bateman; Mike O'Neill
> Cc:<> (<>)
> Subject: Re: MIME type; except/permit naming
> *** gpg4o | Unknown Signature from 40203EE90BBAB306 1 2 01 1397012393 9
> ***
> On March 20, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Adrian Bateman <<>>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 9:28 AM, Nicholas Doty wrote:
> >> ## naming of user-granted exceptions
> >>
> >> Although we opened it up on the Compliance product, this issue about
> naming
> >> is actually as much or more relevant to the TPE. Specifically, since
> "exceptions"
> >> are not errors/exceptions and might not be exceptional to a general
> preference,
> >> should we call these "user-granted permissions" instead of "user-granted
> exceptions"?
> >>
> >>
> >> This wouldn't change any functional, just a find-and-replace with the name
> throughout,
> >> but I've heard it come up a couple of times and if we want to change this,
> doing
> >> so before Last Call will make public reviews/comments easier.
> >
> > In the past (I think at the Boston meeting a year ago) I made the suggestion to
> have
> > this be the permissions API, rather than "exceptions". However since then we
> have shipped
> > what we believe to be a conforming implementation of this API in IE11. While
> we all accept
> > the risk that things might change when shipping a feature from an unfinished
> spec, I think
> > it would be a shame if we changed just the name at this stage. I emphasised
> during the
> > Boston meeting that we wanted to get things as stable as possible to allow for
> our
> > implementation to proceed and the group worked hard to that end.
> >
> > I don't have a strong feeling about this - if the strong consensus of the group is
> to
> > change the names then we'll have to live with that and update them in a future
> release
> > of IE - but I think my preference now is to stick with what we've had for a long
> time.
> That's understandable, and it certainly seems useful that we can have an existing
> browser implementation to test on right away. It sounded to me when we
> discussed this on the phone that a lot of people didn't have strong feelings either
> way, since it's the naming of an API. Mike, I think you raised this issue, would
> you accept leaving the terms as-is?
> Thanks,
> Nick

Received on Monday, 14 April 2014 19:36:22 UTC