On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Jim Straus wrote:
> Hello -
> I definitely don't like the Android model. We'll have to figure out
> exactly how to communicate permissions requests to users. On the other
> hand, an appropriately vetted and signed app could be given permissions
> implicitly in a
Hi All
I see five questions:
1. Has the browser used this plugin anytime in the past (hidden pluggin
install problem).
2. What should be the scope of the opt-in (per domain vs global)
3. Click to play or context menu
3.1 (options for context menu)
4. What do do on non-updated plugins when we k
Hello -
I definitely don't like the Android model. We'll have to figure out
exactly how to communicate permissions requests to users. On the other
hand, an appropriately vetted and signed app could be given permissions
implicitly in a permissions manifest, so the user doesn't need to deal
Hi,
i've been working on the HTML5 iframe sandbox for a while now and have just
updated
the feature page at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Platform/Iframe_Sandbox
with some resolved issues and the current implementation plan.
I'm posting this here in case folks are interested.
https://bugz
I like this proposal at a high level, it provides for a lot of flexibility.
What I like about a permission model that can prompt at runtime is that is
makes some permissions optional. On Android many free apps require geolocation
purely for advertising targeting, requiring the user to trade th
