- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 12:47:02 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Ali Alabbas <alia@microsoft.com>, Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com>, Ben Kelly <bkelly@mozilla.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> Can't we use the permission API [1] for this? I.e. use the permission
>> name "persistent-storage" or some such? So rather than "default" we're
>> return "prompt".
>>
>> [1] https://w3c.github.io/permissions/
>
> I'm sorry, what do you mean by "this"?
By "this" I mean "the API discussed in this thread" :)
More specifically, I'm proposing to remove the persistentPermission()
function in favor of using navigator.permissions.query({ name:
"persistent-storage" });
> I filed an issue a while back
> on that specification for trying to needlessly change terminology:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/permissions/issues/25
I'll comment there, but either way this seems like a bikeshed issue
that's not enough to kill the permissions spec.
> If you mean persistentPermission() by this, the reason that is there
> is because we have done the same thing for other new APIs, such as the
> Push API.
In the past we didn't have the navigator.permissions API. Now we do.
/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 4 May 2015 19:47:58 UTC