Re: Screensharing: Bootstrapping Collaboration between Capturer and Capturee

On 16/06/2021 15:15, Elad Alon wrote:
> By your own admission, *the same lock-out is possible* with a 
> MessageChannel, so all previous arguments in that vein are equally
> valid/invalid here. A rose by any other name...
> What do we gain then? Can we discover self-capture more easily? No,
> it becomes a bit more involved. Can we establish an arbitrary channel
> of communication more easily? No, we're kind of pushed down the path
> of the MessageChannel. (Granted - we can still change lanes. Note
> "more easily.")
> What do we lose? The capturer can no longer get information about the
> captured application without alerting the captured application to the
> existence of a capture. A real shame to lose this property. IIRC
> Mozilla was concerned that captured applications could "paywall" and
> start censoring themselves when captured. I share that concern.
> Btw, I'd like to remind you of the presence of "*" (the wildcard
> character) as a valid value of *permittedOrigins*. Browsers are not
> in the business of forcing collaboration, we're in the business of
> enabling it between consenting participants.

The more I think about it, I think your points
 are fair.

*handle* being a string is indeed simpler and potentially more flexible.
I'm not sold on the extra iframe-hop but at that point we're in
bikeshedding territory, so it's not that much of a concern.

I share the concerns of *permittedOrigins* raised by others that it is
an easy lockout mechanism but your
 point is valid that a lockout is possible anyways and the origin
concept is well-known and understood.



Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2021 14:10:29 UTC