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

Re: Permissions work - status and intent to update

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:41:36 +0100
To: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Cc: mlamouri@google.com, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56A8BB00.3010507@alvestrand.no>
These updates have now been pushed to the PR.

Den 27. jan. 2016 12:11, skrev Harald Alvestrand:
> Hi,
> 
> some time ago I made my proposal for MediaCapture permissions into a
> pull request here:
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/permissions/pull/57
> 
> I've had some dialogue with Mounir about it afterwards (partly in the
> PR), and I intend to make the following updates:
> 
> - Delete the "all-*" variants of permissions
> - Add a new meaning to the descriptor: If there's no device in it, it
> means "any"
> - Add a new value for the descriptor: If the device is "*", it means "all".
> 
> Thus, you could say
> 
> navigator.permissions.query({name:'camera'}).then(function(result)) {
>   if (result.state == 'granted') {
>       // I know I can request "any camera" and get something, if any
> cameras exist
> 
> navigator.permissions.query({name:'camera', deviceId='*'}).then(
>   if (result.state == 'granted') {
>       // I know I have access to all cameras that exist
> 
> navigator.permissions.query({name:'camera', deviceId='abcdef'}).then(
>   if (result.state == 'granted') {
>      // I know I have access to the specific camera with id 'abcdef'
> 
> Does this make sense to people?
> (I'm not 100% sold on the usefulness of the '*' device ID myself...)
> 
> Since this crosses two WGs, perhaps comments on the PR itself is easiest.
> 
> Harald
> 
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2016 12:42:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:17 UTC