Re: VC meeting to discuss Permissions spec

The time works for me. Thanks!

Are we doing webex, hangouts or both?


On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Xiaoqian Wu <xiaoqian@w3.org> wrote:

> Sure, Jeffrey.
>
> The WebEx meeting information is here:
>
> Permissions Spec Discussion
> 11:00 pm  |  PDT | Tuesday, June 7 |  1 hr
> 8:00 am  |  Berlin | Wednesday, June 8 | 1 hr
> 4:00 pm  |  Sydney | Wednesday, June 8 |  1 hr
>
> Join WebEx meeting
> Join:
> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m1521876d6fb50c25cde58ee010fd130c
> Meeting number: 640 290 870
> Meeting password:       webappsec
>
> Join by phone
> +1-617-324-0000 US Toll Number
> Access code: 640 290 870
> Mobile Auto Dial:+1-617-324-0000,,,640290870#
>
> Add this meeting to your calendar:
> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=md7085b200e6ee6006b2a1d9ef2191a1c
>
> Enjoy :)
>
> -xiaoqian
>
>
> > On 2 Jun 2016, at 7:08 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > It looks like the most people can attend on PDT June 7 11PM–12AM,
> > Berlin time June 8 8AM–9AM, Sydney time June 8 4PM–5PM.
> > Wendy/Xiaoqian, can you set up the WebEx meeting?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jeffrey
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I've been updating the Permissions spec to improve its support for
> >> complex permissions like Bluetooth, for temporary grants as seen in
> >> Safari and Firefox, and for UA innovation.
> >>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_YTpXijrkKNlmSlpA0fEwc5WMmZvRvdTRwF81g_gndk/edit
> >> surveys the existing practice with permissions and describes some
> >> tricky aspects of various future plans. I've proposed 3 fairly
> >> different models, and I think it's surpassed everyone's ability to
> >> investigate them enough to develop a preference.
> >>
> >> So I'd like to schedule a meeting with interested folks some time in
> >> the next 2 weeks so that we can all focus enough to pick one of the
> >> models.
> >>
> >> What times work for people? Please fill out
> >> http://doodle.com/poll/e2r74364qzkmxga9 to express a preference. We
> >> can meet via
> https://talkgadget.google.com/hangouts/_/google.com/permissionsspec.
> >>
> >> The models I've written up are:
> >>
> >> * https://github.com/w3c/permissions/pull/95: Each feature defines a
> >> storage type, and permission stores store it. The UA doesn't need any
> >> permission stores, but if it has them, it needs one per global object,
> >> probably plus one per origin, and can save grants to multiple stores
> >> and initialize new stores pretty freely. This version also needs
> >> https://github.com/w3c/permissions/pull/91 to let other specs modify
> >> their storage types appropriately.
> >>
> >> * https://github.com/w3c/permissions/pull/96: Defines a permission
> >> store for each global object, but leaves it up to the UA how those are
> >> created. Stores hold a collection of entries for each feature, rather
> >> than a unified "storage" type, which helps with granting access to
> >> discrete devices. This spec spends some words requiring that
> >> permission changes only happen on event loop turn boundaries, but
> >> that's not very useful to developers since every algorithm using
> >> permissions runs 'in parallel'.
> >>
> >> * https://github.com/w3c/permissions/pull/97: Feature specs use
> >> "descriptor's permission state" and "descriptor's extra permission
> >> data" to read the UA's notion of the user's intent, but there's no
> >> model of the UA's storage. Individual permissions can add constraints:
> >> for example, "camera" and "microphone" require that iframes without
> >> the allowusermedia attribute return "denied". This option treats
> >> permission the most like UI, which we traditionally don't specify.
> >>
> >> #97 was written last, so it also includes some other improvements,
> >> like calling things like "camera" features instead of permissions, and
> >> defining algorithms for other specs to use to show permission prompts.
> >> I'll port those to whichever version we pick if you like them.
> >>
> >> Please let me know when you're free to talk, and give the options some
> >> thought ahead of the meeting, and hopefully we can settle on something
> >> lots of specs can use.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jeffrey
>
>