- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:15:49 -0400
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
RoBman I never said this wasn't working. The issue I brought up was differentiating between access denied due to a user decision (cached or not) versus due to browser security (user was never asked). This is why we are discussing the addition of DEVICE_NOT_AVAILABLE. Gili On 25/07/2013 10:05 PM, Rob Manson wrote: > I just upgraded Chrome on my Linux laptop and this version is throwing > PERMISSION_DENIED - for both "user denied" and "cached denial". > > So latest versions of both FF and Chrome do seem to be following the > spec for this scenario...although there are fine detail differences > here...but meh. > > roBman > > > On 26/07/13 11:46, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:55 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote: >>> On 25/07/2013 7:43 PM, Rob Manson wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 to that (as long as DEVICE_NOT_AVAILABLE includes both system >>>> errors >>>> and truly "not available" so it doesn't provide a fingerprinting >>>> issue). >>>> >>>> Also, thanks for pointing out where the PERMISSION_DENIED came from >>>> Silvia >>>> 8) I was looking in the wrong spec (must have been tired). >>>> >>>> So in this case the bug should be filed with Chrome and not >>>> Firefox. From >>>> my tests the latest version of Chrome doesn't return >>>> PERMISSION_DENIED. >>> >>> >>> We can't file a bug with Chrome until the spec adds the new >>> enum. So >>> assuming there is consensus, we'd still have to wait for this to >>> make it >>> into the editor's draft. >> >> FYI: PERMISSION_DENIED is in the spec: >> http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html#idl-def-NavigatorUserMediaError >> >> >> Cheers, >> Silvia. >> >> >
Received on Friday, 26 July 2013 03:16:38 UTC