Re: User agent context for rendering the presentation

Ah, now that makes sense :)
Many thanks for the clarification!

Francois.

On 2014-08-20 14:47, Anton Vayvod wrote:
> Hi Francois!
>
> The intent here wasn't to disable the feature for the presented page but
> to force the developers to only use the provided messaging channel
> between the presented and presenting pages. If the presented page relies
> on the presenting one to store something in the cache or IndexedDB for
> it, it can be implemented to work in the 1-UA case but not in the 2-UA
> case. The presented page should have access to these HTML features if
> the user agent running the presentation supports it.
>
> I think the wording for the above list should be clarified that there's
> "no access to cookies, local storage or IndexedDB instances in the
> browser context of the page that initiated the presentation".
> The same way as the same page loaded in a normal Chrome window and in an
> Incognito window will have no way of communicating with its instances
> through the use of cookies or storage APIs.
>
> Hope it helps,
> Anton.
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org
> <mailto:fd@w3.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mark, Jonas, Anton, et al.,
>>
>> I have a question on the need to restrict the access to certain features for presentation content.
>>
>> On 2014-08-14 02:05, mark a. foltz wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> 4. User agent context for rendering the presentation.
>>>
>>>
>>> If we intend the same presentation content to be rendered either in the
>>> same user agent or a remote user agent, we need to carefully define the
>>> rendering context so that the application doesn’t get different behavior
>>> according to whether it is rendered remotely or locally.  In particular
>>> the presentation rendering context must have:
>>>
>>>
>>> - No access to cookies, local storage or IndexedDB instances
>>>
>>> - No access to HTTP cache
>>>
>>> - No access to pre-existing SharedWorkers
>>>
>>> - Extensions are debatable - some may be required for e.g. VPN or
>>> firewalls to work correctly
>>
>>
>> I understand the need to have the presentation rendering context behave similarly whether it runs locally or remotely, but I don't see the implications in terms of restricting access to the features mentioned above. For instance, I don't understand why having access to the local (or remote) IndexedDB could pose a problem. A Web app that uses IndexedDB cannot assume that the database exists, has the right version, or is not being used by another tab that shares the same origin at the same time. How is running a presentation context locally or remotely any different?
>>
>> Could you clarify why it matters? What issues are you trying to prevent?
>>
>> For example, in the AwesomeGame example that Jonas presented elsewhere in the thread, it would make sense to me to have the "full game" run on the TV set. If the game makes use of IndexedDB when it's available, then not being able to use it on the TV set could noticeably affect performances or available features.
>>
>> From a developer perspective, it would also mean that presentation apps would not have the same powers as regular Web apps and would need to be specifically tailored as presentation apps, which strikes me as odd. I would rather expect to be able to take any Web app, even one that does not degrade gracefully when e.g. IndexedDB is not available, complete it to run within a presentation session, and be confident that it will work in any environment that supports the features that the app is using. Granted, it's always good practice to degrade gracefully (or rather to enhance progressively) but it's not a reason to make that practice a requirement, especially for features that developers rightfully start to take for granted in most browser environments.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Francois.

Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:57:44 UTC