Re: Intent to put Permission API's .revoke() method behind a pref

2016-08-17 Thread Jan-Ivar Bruaroey
I support putting .revoke() behind a pref (I would like to go further and remove it since I find it problematic, but a pref is a start). On 8/17/16 3:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: We should maybe also pref .query() too... wdyt? The ma

Re: Intent to put Permission API's .revoke() method behind a pref

2016-08-17 Thread Marcos Caceres
On August 17, 2016 at 5:02:07 PM, Anne van Kesteren (ann...@annevk.nl) wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:48 AM, wrote: > > There is consensus that .query() is beneficial, so that one can remain. > > Is there really? Well, the use case at least: that a developer should not need to actually invoke

Re: Intent to put Permission API's .revoke() method behind a pref

2016-08-17 Thread Martin Thomson
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Interesting, I guess I didn't realize that covered more than just > query(). If we ship a subset of an API it probably would help to be > clear, indeed. Well, it only mentioned .query() explicitly, but then said "other parts will be impl

Re: Intent to put Permission API's .revoke() method behind a pref

2016-08-17 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > Well, it covers the 80% case (specially on mobile, where tabs are not > at useful). But yeah... the model is not there :( That is a good point. When isolated to a browsing context it's still very useful information for website UX. > We s

Re: Intent to put Permission API's .revoke() method behind a pref

2016-08-17 Thread Martin Thomson
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > The main problem with query as I see it is that since we haven't > agreed on what permissions are keyed on, an application cannot really > do anything with the answer it gets from query. E.g., communicating > the answer with other open ta

Re: Intent to put Permission API's .revoke() method behind a pref

2016-08-17 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:48 AM, wrote: > There is consensus that .query() is beneficial, so that one can remain. Is there really? The main problem with query as I see it is that since we haven't agreed on what permissions are keyed on, an application cannot really do anything with the answer i

Re: Intent to put Permission API's .revoke() method behind a pref

2016-08-16 Thread Martin Thomson
Sounds like a good plan. (For those who might be wondering: .request() was never exposed.) On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:48 PM, wrote: > Summary: It seems we prematurely shipped the .revoke() method on the > Permissions API before it was stable or deciding if we even wanted it in the > platform.