W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: Permissions API vs local APIs

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 08:33:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8n1_re7PMQhm1cd+Tg0AzC_uFc2xF6eejs2_Dmv4LFjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Miguel Garcia <miguelg@chromium.org>
Cc: Michael van Ouwerkerk <mvanouwerkerk@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, WebAppSec WG <public-webappsec@w3.org>
I think mozilla would be fine with taking the permission API as a
dependency and implement that at the same time. Implementing the
permission API should be fairly trivial for us.

But we should verify this with the people actually working on the push API.

/ Jonas

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Miguel Garcia <miguelg@chromium.org> wrote:
> Agreed, I think we need a backwards compatible solution until the permission
> API gets some traction but once Mozilla ships it I think new APIs should
> just use the permission API.
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Michael van Ouwerkerk
> <mvanouwerkerk@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
>>> > I agree with Jonas. Extending the permission API to give developers a
>>> > single
>>> > place to check with a single consistent style seems like the right way
>>> > to
>>> > go.
>>>
>>> Yet others at Google are pushing the expose them twice strategy...
>>> Perhaps because the Permissions API is not yet ready?
>>
>>
>> Yes, we wanted to ensure this is in the Push API because that seems to
>> have more implementation momentum from browser vendors than the Permissions
>> API. We didn't want developers to do hacky things in the meantime. I agree
>> that once the Permissions API has critical mass, that should be the single
>> place for checking permissions.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> https://annevankesteren.nl/
>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2015 15:34:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:31 UTC