- From: Bassbouss, Louay <louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:49:48 +0000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: "mark a. foltz" <mfoltz@google.com>, John Mellor <johnme@google.com>, Anton Vayvod <avayvod@google.com>, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>, "public-webscreens@w3.org" <public-webscreens@w3.org>, Marco Chen <mchen@mozilla.com>, Wesley Johnston <wjohnston@mozilla.com>, Evelyn Hung <ehung@mozilla.com>
Hi Jonas, I agree to not disable every device API It is important for Multiscreen applications to have the same behavior independent from 1 or 2 UAs. Which device API do you think it is important to keep it enabled for the presenting page? Regards, Louay > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc] > Sent: Mittwoch, 20. August 2014 23:43 > To: Bassbouss, Louay > Cc: mark a. foltz; John Mellor; Anton Vayvod; Francois Daoust; public- > webscreens@w3.org; Marco Chen; Wesley Johnston; Evelyn Hung > Subject: Re: User agent context for rendering the presentation (was: Re: > Google/Mozilla Presentation API update) > > DeviceOrientation events is definitely a very interesting question. I would be > ok with disabling those when the presentation page is running "on the > device" rather than "on the TV". Though for the 2 UA case I think it would be > fine to expose the orientation of the "TV". Consider the case of displaying a > presentation on a tablet rather than a TV for example. > > So maybe rather than disabling DeviceOrientation, we should define that if > possible, the events should reflect the orientation of the device that the > presentation stuff. If it's not possible to get accurate information about that, > then disable the API. > > Though it would be good if things like the screen orientation API, and APIs for > getting window size, reflected the the orientation and size of the window on > the TV. > > I also don't think it's generally true that we should disable all device APIs. For > example I think we should expose any game controllers that are exposed to > whatever device the page runs on. If it runs "on the device" we expose > controllers connected to the device, if it runs "on the TV" we expose any > controllers connected to the TV. Pages are not going to come to depend on > game controllers being connected anyway. > > / Jonas > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Bassbouss, Louay > <louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > Hi Mark, all, > > > > > > > > Just returned from vacation and try to follow the discussion. What > > about Device APIs I think they should be also disabled in the presenting > page. > > Otherwise the behavior of the application will be not the same between > > 1UA and 2UAs. For example if DeviceOrientation is used in the > > presenting page in the 1UA case it works fine but not for 2 UAs. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Louay > > > > From: mark a. foltz [mailto:mfoltz@google.com] > > Sent: Mittwoch, 20. August 2014 19:27 > > To: John Mellor > > Cc: Anton Vayvod; Francois Daoust; public-webscreens@w3.org; Jonas > > Sicking; Marco Chen; Wesley Johnston; Evelyn Hung > > Subject: Re: User agent context for rendering the presentation (was: Re: > > Google/Mozilla Presentation API update) > > > > > > > > Yes, that wording is better. To be clear the presentation context > > should have access to all storage features, but the storage itself > > should behave as John describes. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 6:15 AM, John Mellor <johnme@google.com> > wrote: > > > > Drive-by: perhaps it would be better to say that presentation content > > has access to all these features as usual, but they always start off > > empty (and are emptied at the end of the session), as if the > > presentation content were launched in its own incognito window. > > > > > > > > On 20 August 2014 13:47, Anton Vayvod <avayvod@google.com> 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> 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 Thursday, 21 August 2014 14:50:26 UTC