Is there a timeline for the permission API in Mozilla?
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Miguel Garcia
> wrote:
> > Notifications has it (as a property instead of a method which is a pain).
>
> Notifications is a special snowflake though
Agreed, I think we need a backwards compatible solution until the
permission API gets some traction but once Mozilla ships it I think new
APIs should just use the permission API.
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Michael van Ouwerkerk <
mvanouwerk...@google.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at
Notifications has it (as a property instead of a method which is a pain).
I think that once the permissions API has shipped in both Mozilla and
Chrome we should get future APIs to use it exclusively. Push seems to be a
bit border line given the timeline so I think we should just implement in
both
On May 6, 2015 at 2:38:06 PM, Mounir Lamouri (mou...@lamouri.fr) wrote:
> > > Marcos|Mounir, do you two have any thoughts on this?
>
> I agree with Jonas: we should delegate the check to the Permissions
> API. However, I don't see how I can enforce that if the Push API doesn't
> want to. I
On 6 May 2015 at 11:07, Doug Turner wrote:
> On May 6, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> FWIW, the permission API as it currently stands is pretty trivial to
> implement. So I don't see a reason to delay until 2017 or even Q3
> 2015.
>
>
> If the spec is ready to go (what’s anne’s worry
On Wed, 6 May 2015, at 19:07, Doug Turner wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, the permission API as it currently stands is pretty trivial to
> > implement. So I don't see a reason to delay until 2017 or even Q3
> > 2015.
>
> If the spec is ready to go (w
> On May 6, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> FWIW, the permission API as it currently stands is pretty trivial to
> implement. So I don't see a reason to delay until 2017 or even Q3
> 2015.
If the spec is ready to go (what’s anne’s worry), then lets implement it and
remove the stuff
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Doug Turner wrote:
> The way I would look at this is based on timeframe -- if we're not
> implementing the Permissions API until 2017 or something, i'd just leave the
> functionality in the PushAPI spec. If the Permission API is right around the
> corner, I woul
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Miguel Garcia wrote:
> Is there a timeline for the permission API in Mozilla?
It shouldn't be much work to add this. The main problem I see is the
list of open issues with the specification.
--
https://annevankesteren.nl/
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Miguel Garcia wrote:
> Notifications has it (as a property instead of a method which is a pain).
Notifications is a special snowflake though since it has a
requestPermission() method too which no other API that requires
permission (e.g. geolocation, fullscreen, poi
The way I would look at this is based on timeframe — if we’re not implementing
the Permissions API until 2017 or something, i’d just leave the functionality
in the PushAPI spec. If the Permission API is right around the corner, I would
remove it form the PushAPI spec.
Do any other APIs have a
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> I think Mozilla would be fine with taking the permission API as a
> dependency and implement that at the same time. Implementing the
> permission API should be fairly trivial for us.
>
> But we should verify this with the people actually worki
I think mozilla would be fine with taking the permission API as a
dependency and implement that at the same time. Implementing the
permission API should be fairly trivial for us.
But we should verify this with the people actually working on the push API.
/ Jonas
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:13 AM, M
Jonas has a good idea in extending the Perms API. This reduces extra work
and simplifies a lot
On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, Mike West wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Jonas Sicking > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Anne van Kesteren > > wrote:
>> > Over in
>> https://lists.w3.o
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Mike West wrote:
> > I agree with Jonas. Extending the permission API to give developers a
> single
> > place to check with a single consistent style seems like the right way to
> > go.
>
> Yet others at
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Mike West wrote:
> I agree with Jonas. Extending the permission API to give developers a single
> place to check with a single consistent style seems like the right way to
> go.
Yet others at Google are pushing the expose them twice strategy...
Perhaps because the
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Anne van Kesteren
> wrote:
> > Over in
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2015May/0006.html
> > Jonas pointed out that having two APIs for doing the same thing is
> > "nuts". We shou
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Over in
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2015May/0006.html
> Jonas pointed out that having two APIs for doing the same thing is
> "nuts". We should probably decide whether we go ahead with the
> Permissions AP
Over in
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2015May/0006.html
Jonas pointed out that having two APIs for doing the same thing is
"nuts". We should probably decide whether we go ahead with the
Permissions API or keep doing permission checks on a per-API basis.
--
https://a
19 matches
Mail list logo
