W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > May 2015

Re: Permissions API vs local APIs

From: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 09:00:57 -0700
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Martin Thomson <mt@mozilla.com>, Miguel Garcia <miguelg@chromium.org>, Michael van Ouwerkerk <mvanouwerkerk@google.com>, Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, WebAppSec WG <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A3DE80D2-F0E4-428E-9B53-1DDF855B19AF@mozilla.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
The way I would look at this is based on timeframe — if we’re not implementing the Permissions API until 2017 or something, i’d just leave the functionality in the PushAPI spec.  If the Permission API is right around the corner, I would remove it form the PushAPI spec.

Do any other APIs have a permission check function in their interface?  Geo doesn’t (which shares a similar permission model).





> On May 6, 2015, at 8:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
>>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Michael van Ouwerkerk
>>> <mvanouwerkerk@google.com> wrote:
>>>> 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.
> 
> Martin, Doug?
> 
> 
> -- 
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2015 16:01:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:13 UTC