- From: Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 09:33:32 +0200
- To: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>
- Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>, Raymes Khoury <raymes@google.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mlamouri@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Martin Thomson <mt@mozilla.com>, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
- Message-ID: <CAOqqYVG9pL+tT1D-KcJHFQgaX+qt7CxDhAk+LFO08=6a5_R4Zw@mail.gmail.com>
.... and if you can expand the doodle with some more Europe-friendly time, I'd be very happy .... On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com> wrote: > Thanks for writing all these up! > > From the descritption in your mail: > > - the critical point on 95 is probably not so much when stores are > created, but when they are destroyed. > > - 97 seems like "do what I mean". If adopted, it means that each UA must > design its storage model on its own, and consistency goes out the window. > Not happy with that. > > - I don't get what you mean by calling the camera permission a "feature". > Care to explain further? > (In my mind, the "feature" is all of the aspects of camera management; > permission is only one small part of it, and the only one I want to have > the permissions spec say anything about.) > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 3:11 AM, 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 >> > >
Received on Friday, 27 May 2016 07:34:19 UTC