Re: [widgets] Comments to <access> element text

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

I can live with this if the rest of the WG wants it, but I don't get
the sense this will get used much (i.e., required = "false'). So
again, do we _REALLY_ need this?

>> 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.
>

Agreed.
-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au

Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 15:37:01 UTC