I strongly support the proposal to remove this API. -Brent
> On Oct 30, 2016, at 5:54 PM, Simon Fraser <[email protected]> wrote: > > I support the proposal to remove. > > Simon > >> On Oct 30, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Brady Eidson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> There's code in the tree to support the W3C Battery Status API. >> >> A recent study showed the extent of the risk (discussion and link to study >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blog.lukaszolejnik.com_battery-2Dstatus-2Dreadout-2Das-2Da-2Dprivacy-2Drisk_&d=CwICAg&c=Hw-EJUFt2_D9PK5csBJ29kRV40HqSDXWTLPyZ6W8u84&r=gEUmSR3VtC-5Q3Im6T2Js1aXwjJK4RExonGEvDq2twI&m=ZKSbJXtXvUd44zKls9LfZwY1fsH0NRSg8KxOY7clZdI&s=8c9qMq7SAf9mAh8t9oHbJE45_tXRsbZBMid46hd9UXs&e= >> ) which led to Mozilla first making the API less precise >> (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1124127) but then eventually >> removing it altogether (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1313580) >> >> Apple has never enabled this on their ports, one reason being concern for >> abuse in fingerprinting/tracking. >> The study seems to be a strong second opinion backing this concern. >> Mozilla's actions demonstrate another vendor not seeing the API being useful >> enough to outweigh the user concern. >> >> As one of the voices for Apple's ports I think the above episode further >> cements our concern in ever enabling the API. >> >> As one of the voices for WebKit as a whole I think above episode suggests we >> should just remove the code from the tree altogether. >> >> What to other Apple folks think? What do port maintainers who enable the API >> think? >> >> Thanks, >> ~Brady > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
