On 05/19/2015 12:26 PM, Christopher Lord wrote:
Does anyone have any thoughts or objections on this? If we're allowing third party homescreens, this seems like a blocker to me.
I think it would make sense if we restricted the permission such that the homescreen had to be the actively configured homescreen. Specifically, I would argue that a user would expect that if they install a homescreen but they're not using it that it should effectively be inert. (Unless there is an expected UX use-case where users would actively switch between homescreens on a regular basis.)
My rationale for thinking this would be okay is :sicking's proposal that we recognize and codify that some things are effectively proprietary extension APIs and some things are web standard APIs. Homescreens and homescreen APIs seem very explicitly to be extension APIs.
Note: I don't know the details of how homescreens currently work. Maybe they're already inert if not the active homescreen?
Andrew _______________________________________________ dev-b2g mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
