On 16 February 2015 at 05:51, Paul Theriault <[email protected]> wrote:
> When you say "(and some proposed web standards)" what are you referring > to? The subset of privileged/certified APIs that we manage to expose to the > web? Just making sure I follow you? > Yes, technically you could argue that something isn't a web standard until it's at the level of a W3C Recommendation. I would still consider something a web app if it was using non-standard APIs, as long as those APIs are being safely exposed to web content and are on the way to being on a standards track. I did some analysis of the permissions used in Gaia to see how feasible > this is. See[1] for data. > > This confirms some of the high priority APIs that we might want to expose: > - deviceStorage:* > - contacts > - SystemXHR (hard to imagine this being exposed to the web) > - Camera: expose Camera API? Or add features to getUserMedia (latter seems > more likely, but are their hardware risks/limitations) > - Mobile Connection API is another popular one, but this is very > dangerous. Maybe we could look at exposing more of the read-only attributes > through the mobile-network permission but it has similar privacy > implications to geolocation, only more difficult to explain to the user. > Sounds good. > Right - basically you are just talking about a name change here? > Yes, exactly, but an important one. An acknowledgement of a clear boundary between what is "the web" and what is a Firefox*-only addon. > > Certified --> Firefox App > Privileged apps --> Firefox App > Web app --> Web App > Hopefully the current privileged apps would just go away, or become web apps with a new web-friendly permissions mechanism. > I.e. make privileged apps into web apps (using your new terminology?)? > Yes.
_______________________________________________ dev-b2g mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
