Yeah, I think this should work for a first version. We can relax these
restrictions in the future.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Am Dienstag, 15. Juli 2014 21:01:19 UTC+2 schrieb somb...@gmail.com:
I think an important statement for the spec to make is why it needs to
exist at all? Specifically, it seems like both the WebUSB
https://bugzil.la/674718 and WebBluetooth https://bugzil.la/674737 specs
should both be
dved...@mozilla.com
Cc: dev-platform dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:01:19 PM
Subject: Re: Intent to implement: webserial api
On 07/13/2014 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Sadly I don't think that is very safe. I bet a significant majority of our
users have
On 07/16/2014 02:03 PM, Dave Hylands wrote:
But phones, and devices like the Raspberry Pi, and BeagleBone Black, also have
native serial ports (i.e. non-USB, non-Bluetooth), and the people that use
these types of devices are the very one which are extremely frustrated by the lack of
support
Subject: Re: Intent to implement: webserial api
On 07/16/2014 02:03 PM, Dave Hylands wrote:
But phones, and devices like the Raspberry Pi, and BeagleBone Black, also
have native serial ports (i.e. non-USB, non-Bluetooth), and the people
that use these types of devices are the very one which
On Jul 16, 2014 10:34 PM, Dave Hylands dhyla...@mozilla.com wrote:
I guess my point is that it isn't always possible to determine what
device is connected. You need to know the correct baud rate,
hardware-flow-control, serial comms to even talk to the device. Some
devices are write-only. Some
Thank you all for your input. I would like to sum up in order to have a
better overview of what we are looking for.
- Everybody agree that we should provide a restriction level to the api.
- The restriction should be on per web page basic and not per port basic
which will be inefficient.
On 2014-07-14, 7:22 AM, tzi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 14, 2014 2:00:47 PM UTC+3, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 13/07/14 18:35, Vasilis wrote:
Jonas, I would be really interested in your thoughts. Try as we might
(in the WebSerial API docs, at least), noone could actually think of
On 07/13/2014 11:55 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Sadly I don't think that is very safe. I bet a significant majority of our
users have no idea what a serial port is or what will happen if they allow
a website to connect to it.
Agreed. It seems like the concept users are most likely to reliably
On 13/07/14 18:35, tzi...@gmail.com wrote:
Jonas, I would be really interested in your thoughts. Try as we might
(in the WebSerial API docs, at least), noone could actually think of
a use case where providing access to a physical (RS232), or Virtual
(VirtualUSB or VirtualBluetooth) serial port
On Monday, July 14, 2014 2:00:47 PM UTC+3, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 13/07/14 18:35, Vasilis wrote:
Jonas, I would be really interested in your thoughts. Try as we might
(in the WebSerial API docs, at least), noone could actually think of
a use case where providing access to a
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:22 AM, tzi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 14, 2014 2:00:47 PM UTC+3, Gervase Markham wrote:
On 13/07/14 18:35, Vasilis wrote:
Jonas, I would be really interested in your thoughts. Try as we might
(in the WebSerial API docs, at least), noone could
Ah, sorry for not being too straightforward Erik.
The answer is no (as far as the API design goes, but the implementation should
follow that ofc)
There is actually a very nice image explaining this on our messageboard, but
I'm on my phone so I'll do my best to explain this with a similar
On Jul 13, 2014 4:13 AM, Alexandros Chronopoulos achro...@gmail.com
wrote:
The basic security model I am thinking of right now is to ask the user
explicitly. When a website try to open a serial port the user will be
promoted asking for permissions.
Sadly I don't think that is very safe. I bet
Hi guys,
As the guy who originally started the WebSerial API discussion, if i could give
my two cents, I agree with Dave. It's virtually impossible to separate access
per-port. It's all or nothing.
We had this same discussion (actually, long bikesheding) on the WebSerial API
docs as well, but
- Original Message -
Jonas, I would be really interested in your thoughts. Try as we might (in the
WebSerial API docs, at least), noone could actually think of a use case
where providing access to a physical (RS232), or Virtual (VirtualUSB or
VirtualBluetooth) serial port could be a
What are you assuming about access to actual USB devices?
-Ekr
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Andrew McCreight amccrei...@mozilla.com
wrote:
- Original Message -
Jonas, I would be really interested in your thoughts. Try as we might
(in the
WebSerial API docs, at least), noone
Summary: Webapi to access serial devices through browser. The api will
provide, to websites, read and write capability from local serial port
through javascript. Such an implementation will connect web with
physical devices such as micro controllers, 3d printers etc.
Bug:
What's the security model for this API?
/ Jonas
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Alexandros Chronopoulos
achro...@gmail.com wrote:
Summary: Webapi to access serial devices through browser. The api will
provide, to websites, read and write capability from local serial port
through javascript.
19 matches
Mail list logo
