On 1.2.2012 5:19, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote:
I understand the need for protecting users... fine by me, but by
limiting developers?
The fact, that people are giving permission to operation they do not
care to find information about to some program/site
they know nothing about... Well it's their choice...
Please go read<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent> and
stop using car analogies. Also, note that the WHATWG has very little to
do with UA-specific safety and security mechanisms.
Greetings,
Thanks for the link, but I'm aware about informed consents without it
(or is it the time where we simply assume everybody dumb or nobody being
able to search on itst onw in case of not knowing?)
UA specifics? who's talking here about UA specifics? I'de be glad if
there were even any to be concern about... like 3 billions popup danger
windows in case script tries to save file disk... no concern here,
because we cannot do that, it might be dangerous. Concern about prompt
to allow permanent r/w access to directory chosen by user, what concern?
We cannot read from disk directly, who cares, that application always
works with the same file, and user always have to be annoyed with input
file element... it might be dangerous; permanent database? Maybe being
shared among applications? Who cares about that... Direct socket
access... who would need to directly access sockets and communicate with
protocol of your choice? And if you do? Forget about web technologies,
run some actual programming language, and write WebSocket server acting
like proxy...
There is no UA here anywhere, my worries are about the fact, that "think
may be dangerous, so we do not allow it"
Brona
