- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 08:32:45 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Domenic Denicola >> <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: >>> So we should make a choice, as to whether we want developers to assume they will always get permission (in which case it should reject upon permission not being granted), or whether we want developers to ask the API whether they were granted permission (in which case it should give back a boolean fulfillment value or similar). >> >> How can they assume permission is always granted? It's up the user. >> It's a request from the developer and the user can say no. What's >> unclear about the name? > > Yeah, you misunderstood the question. It's about whether permission > failure should reject the promise or accept it with a boolean. Domenic did not ask a question. I asked a question since it's unclear to me why a developer could reasonably assume they will always get permission. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 06:57:00 UTC