Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: Permissions API
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, at 03:50, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2015-09-01 9:57 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > But I agree that we should make it clear that we do not intend to
> > implement a request API.
>
> There is actually a valid use case for a request API. It has become
> clear that we need to expose pasting functionality to the Web, and the
> most natural way of doing so is document.execCommand("paste"). This
> operation however cannot be exposed without permission because of
> privacy reasons. And this is an API where modifying it to add support
> for requesting permission doesn't make sense.
>
> AFAIK right now the Chrome team is experimenting with creating a
> solution for this use case using the request API. If they manage to
> come up with a good UX, I think we need to implement it (at least for
> the "paste" permission) as well.
Correct.
I don't want to derail the thread and it should probably be a question
for later but I don't understand why websites shouldn't be able to
request permissions when Notifications allows it, Persistent Storage
(latest version) allows it and for the other API it is possible to
actually write a polyfill to request permissions (eg.
navigator.geolocation.getCurrentPosition(function(){}) actually request
the permission). We are just making web developers life harder by
requiring them to request permission indirectly.
There are other reasons why request() would benefit the platform. For
example, being able to request permission for a feature that is used in
some kind of Workers (where permissions can't be requested). Though,
again, I don't want to derail the thread.
-- Mounir
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Intent to ship: RC4 disabled by default in Firefox 44
On 2015/09/02 1:56, Richard Barnes wrote: > * 42/ASAP: Disable whitelist in Nightly/Aurora; no change in Beta/Release > * 43: Disable unrestricted fallback in Beta/Release (thus allowing RC4 only > for whitelisted hosts) > * 44: Disable all RC4 prefs by default, in all releases The whitelist contains not only RC4-exclusive servers but also TLS version intolerant servers. That said, it would not be a big deal because Chrome 45 has disabled insecure fallback to TLS 1.0 [1]. [1] https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=498998 ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: How would you like to spell check this?
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Jörg Knobloch wrote: > I would like to hear a good argument why this confusing behaviour should > be maintained. I don't consider the following a good argument (quote): > "Believe me when I say that *every single time* we have tried to "fix" > something here, someone has told us that they actually want a different > behavior. As such, I think that any change here must be performed as a > larger project to fix our spell checking UI. Even fixing bugs in this code > has proved to cause more issues." > > I even have proof, that this is *not* a good argument, since one aspect of > the general spell checking problem (bug 717433) already has an accepted > solution. > I don't intend to pick a fight with Ehsan over this. I believe what he wrote there. The patch in bug 717433 just seemed like an especially clear improvement. Rob -- lbir ye,ea yer.tnietoehr rdn rdsme,anea lurpr edna e hnysnenh hhe uresyf toD selthor stor edna siewaoeodm or v sstvr esBa kbvted,t rdsme,aoreseoouoto o l euetiuruewFa kbn e hnystoivateweh uresyf tulsa rehr rdm or rnea lurpr .a war hsrer holsa rodvted,t nenh hneireseoouot.tniesiewaoeivatewt sstvr esn ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: How would you like to spell check this?
On 2/09/2015 12:24, Robert O'Callahan wrote: The patch in bug 717433 just seemed like an especially clear improvement. Agreed. This was the nastiest problem that affected the most users and had the most obvious fix. As detailed earlier in the thread, there is another puzzling issue that should be fixed. If Ehsan doesn't want to be burdened with potential issues, I'm happy to look after this area for one year after my change in bug 1200533 goes live. No UI change, no mayor behaviour change, just some fallback changes. That offer includes fixing regressions and handling complaints on BMO. Too good to refuse, isn't it? Jorg K. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: How would you like to spell check this?
On 2015-09-02 6:50 AM, Jörg Knobloch wrote: On 2/09/2015 12:24, Robert O'Callahan wrote: The patch in bug 717433 just seemed like an especially clear improvement. Agreed. This was the nastiest problem that affected the most users and had the most obvious fix. As detailed earlier in the thread, there is another puzzling issue that should be fixed. If Ehsan doesn't want to be burdened with potential issues, I'm happy to look after this area for one year after my change in bug 1200533 goes live. No UI change, no mayor behaviour change, just some fallback changes. That offer includes fixing regressions and handling complaints on BMO. Too good to refuse, isn't it? That's great! Thanks for offer. This is an area that I think we should spend more time on, so I'm happy that you are offering to help. I spoke with Olli (smaug on IRC) who is another person familiar with this code and he said that he might have some free time to help you with this effort. Please feel free to talk to him about what you are planning to do and take it from there. I hope to have more time to help here in the future too, but in the mean time having someone else available to you should help unblock you. Cheers, Ehsan ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
