- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:53:59 +0200
- To: "Sullivan, Bryan" <BS3131@att.com>
- Cc: "public-webapps" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Bryan,
On Apr 30, 2009, at 16:06 , Sullivan, Bryan wrote:
> Here are a couple of suggestions for the <access> element (http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#the-access-element
> ):
>
> Attributes
>
> (add two new attributes)
>
> required: Optional.
>
I'm happy to add a required attribute with the same semantics and
processing as those of the same attribute on <feature>. I think it
makes sense to be consistent here.
> duration: Optional.
>
> One of "one-shot", "session", "blanket", indicating the duration of
> the access essential to the operation of the widget, and thus must
> be allowed to the widget at runtime. In other words, the duration
> attribute denotes the minimum period over which the widget requires
> access to the resource, without further user action authorizing
> continued access. Without this minimum duration the widget serves no
> useful purpose or won't execute properly.
>
I don't think that hits the 80/20 mark. I think it's largely a UI
decision, not something that ought to be requested by the widget
author. For instance on the Mac I use Little Snitch, which tells me
when any app tries to access an address and port combination that I
haven't granted access to, and it allows me to provide access once/
until quit/forever. That all happens at the UI layer, it's not
something that apps request (nor should it be as irrespective of what
they ask the decision should rest with me, the all-powerful user).
What's more if we add that we can add a lot of other things such as
roaming, time of day (which can influence the price of a byte in some
places), etc.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 14:54:35 UTC