- From: Johann Hofmann <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 02:01:33 -0800
- To: w3c/permissions <permissions@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <w3c/permissions/pull/390/review/1185809495@github.com>
@johannhof commented on this pull request. > + </li> + <li> + Otherwise, [=list/append=] |newEntry| to the [=global permission store=]. + </li> + </ol> + </p> + <p> + To <dfn class="export">remove a permission store entry</dfn> from the [=global permission store=] given a name, key and descriptor, run these steps: + <ol class="algorithm"> + <li> + [=list/Remove=] the [=entry=] with the name |name|, key |key| and descriptor |descriptor| from the [=global permission store=]. + </li> + </ol> + </p> + <p> + A <dfn class="export">permission store key</dfn> is a [=tuple=] of ([=origin=] top-level origin, [=origin=] embedded origin). No, it needs to be top-level origin because that's what we'll use to store most other permissions (b/c of delegation). For SAA we could make it work through extracting the site first, though I recognize that that may not be ideal semantics. I'm thinking we could just rename "embedded" here to make this model a bit more flexible, i.e. in "grantee" or something, and then set it to the top-level origin in other permission cases (setting the site to `null`). Thoughts? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/permissions/pull/390#discussion_r1026241370 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <w3c/permissions/pull/390/review/1185809495@github.com>
Received on Friday, 18 November 2022 10:02:37 UTC