Re: [w3c/permissions] Introduce "Automation" section (#151)

jugglinmike commented on this pull request.



> +          </li>
+        </ol>
+      </li>
+      <li>Return false.
+    </ol>
+  </div>
+
+  <section>
+    <h3 id="grant-command">
+      Grant
+    </h3>
+    <table>
+      <tbody>
+        <tr>
+          <th>HTTP Method</th>
+          <th><a lt="extension command prefix">Prefix</a></th>

> Is there any point having /get and /set? It seems more in line with the rest
> of WebDriver to use GET and POST verbs towards the same URL template.

This proposal does not include a /get endpoint, but I think your point about idiom remains.

The WebDriver specification requires that all extension commands be specified with a "prefix" and a "name", which are combined to form the extension command's URI template. When I authored this patch, I could only satisfy that requirement by specifying some string, so I chose "Set." In light of recent recommendations about the "session ID", I think we *could* circumvent this by specifying the "prefix" as "session/{session id}" and the "name" as "permissions". However, this doesn't really jive with the intent of the specification:

> separating extension commands from other commands in order to avoid potential
> resource conflicts with other implementations.

So I think we'll need to revise the WebDriver spec if we want a nicer URL. I've proposed that here https://github.com/w3c/webdriver/issues/1170

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/permissions/pull/151#discussion_r155381592