- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2017 13:11:33 -0700
- To: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
- Cc: tracking protection wg <public-tracking@w3.org>
> On Jul 2, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com> wrote: > > Thanks Roy for this impressive amount of work. I will read it carefully. For > now I like the API name change which is certainly better than "exceptions", > though it might upset some webappsec folk who are already working on a > Permissions API. Oh, cr*p! I completely forgot about that proposal. > We (David Singer I think it was) suggested the term way > back anyway. Yep, that's why ... argh ... I had started with s/exception/override/g but wasn't quite happy with that because I didn't have time to move it into its own interface. For example, navigator.dnt.generalPreference; navigator.dnt.setOverride(); navigator.dnt.clearOverride(); navigator.dnt.confirmOverride(); Would that be okay, or should I just revert back to exceptions? Easier now than later. > There might be mileage in merging these APIs sometime in the future (after > we finish this obviously). > > Here is the current draft of the Permissions API > https://w3c.github.io/permissions/ > > BTW it is also a bit stingy on explaining Promises, though they do have a > reference to the guide. That's what it is supposed to look like when the common form of defining promises is used; it means not having to re-explain promises in every spec. ....Roy
Received on Sunday, 2 July 2017 20:12:02 UTC