I've been starting to lean in this direction as well. The problem is that
extensions are currently not cross-platform and would require separate
implementations for each platform. And in many cases the extension delivery
mechanism is under the control of an arbitrary third party (i.e. Google,
Mozilla, Apple, etc) who has control over which extensions can be hosted,
which is not particularly "open-web"-by.
It might be a reasonable starting point, though, with the goal being to sort
through the security and installation issues and eventually come up with a
cross-platform API in a future HTML version.
-atw
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Linus Upson <li...@google.com> wrote:
> I'm coming to the opinion that we should leverage the install mechanism of
> the extension system for apps that need special permissions, increased
> quotas, expanded lifetimes, etc. The extension can be almost vacuous, and in
> our extension world exceptionally lightweight. It only needs to make the
> special capability available to the page.
> As Maciej brought up on the whatwg list, the extension system gives us
> multiple affirmative steps,
> vetting, reputation and revocation. It also gives us a UI access point. All
> of these are important for controlling apps that aren't safe and stateless.
>
> Linus
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Ian Fette <i...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> I would say that if all the browsers are doing 5MB fixed quota for local
>> storage, it is a good way to start. Sadly, I think we need to start thinking
>> about this now for databases though (certainly I don't want to hit yes 4,000
>> times as my gmail syncs up to 20GB)
>> 2009/7/29 Jeremy Orlow <jor...@google.com>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@chromium.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Ben Laurie <b...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That seems overly simplistic to me - for example, just because I
>>>>> sometimes want to let a chat app have access to my camera, doesn't
>>>>> mean I want it always to have access. Given the number of users I've
>>>>> seen fix this problem with duct tape, I think I can conclude that
>>>>> users would use controls if they had controls they understood and
>>>>> trusted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree. I believe granularity is not only useless but harmful
>>>> for the majority of users. See user studies of desktop app install flows
>>>> or
>>>> options dialogs that universally conclude that giving people more choices
>>>> helps a small number of people and loses a large number. This is the
>>>> philosophy we designed Chrome around, so we're strong backers of it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree on principle. I can imagine a couple ways the web app might
>>> state the capabilities it needs up front. The problem is that, with newer
>>> "versions" of the application, the needs might change. But how do we keep
>>> them from changing so often that the user just gets used to clicking 'yes'
>>> every time? I can't think of any good solution for this.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I think we've gotten a bit abstract here. It's good to talk
>>> about this in general, but in the mean time I'm not sure what to do for
>>> LocalStorage.
>>>
>>> Is the fixed quota per origin a good way to start? If so, is the plan to
>>> leave it that way until someone tries to tackle this stuff in a more unified
>>> way?
>>>
>>> J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
