W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > August 2016

permissions.request() and publishing a new Permissions WD

From: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 16:04:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CANh-dXki4FQ7ZdFkLX3ZjhOHx=LvK5mc_qykwbzZJ7XbZQw=JA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@mozilla.com>, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
We'd like to start publishing <https://github.com/w3c/permissions/pull/99>
the Permissions WD <https://www.w3.org/TR/permissions/> via Echidna.
There's already been a successful Call for Consensus on this list
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2015Mar/0170.html>
to do that, but because we know of some disagreement over the presence of
the navigator.permissions.request() and revoke() functions
<https://w3c.github.io/permissions/#permissions-interface> in the current
Editors' Draft <https://w3c.github.io/permissions/>, we want to
double-check with this list before committing the auto-publication change.

You should read w3c/permissions#83
<https://github.com/w3c/permissions/issues/83> and w3c/permissions#46
<https://github.com/w3c/permissions/issues/46> to see the disagreement
yourself. We think permissions.request() and revoke() should stay in the
draft while we continue to debate the merits of what is currently in the
specification. We'd like to ask this list to help pick from a couple
options:

   1.

   We turn on Echidna to publish the Editors' Draft as-is.
   2.

   We mark permissions.request() and/or revoke() at-risk and then turn on
   Echidna.
   3.

   We pull permissions.request() and/or revoke() out into a separate spec,
   perhaps at the WICG, and then turn on Echidna.


What do folks think?

Thanks,
Jeffrey and Marcos
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2016 23:05:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:21 UTC