On Jun 24, 2010, at 21:00 , Doug Turner wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2010, at 11:48 AM, John Gregg wrote:
>> interface Permissions {
>>
>> // permission values
>> const unsigned long PERMISSION_ALLOWED = 0;
>> const unsigned long PERMISSION_UNKNOWN = 1;
>> const unsigned long PERMISSION_DENIED = 2;
Small nit, but can we have string constants instead ("allowed", "denied",
"unknown")? They usually turn out to either be less typing or more readable
depending on whether one uses "Permissions.PERMISSION_ALLOWED" or "1".
> so, checkPermission and requestPermission. I am happy with that......
+1
> navigator.permissions.requestPermission("geolocation,desktop-notification",...).
I'd make it an array ["geolocation", "notifications"] but yeah.
>> The bigger question is, are other features interested? Would the
>> Geolocation spec consider using something like this for permissions?
>
> cc'ing Andrei Popescu - the editor of the Geolocation spec. Not sure how to
> formally answer your question. However, if the permission api above was
> implemented, I think it naturally follows that "geolocation" would be one of
> the known strings.
DAP would be interested. To talk process a little bit: if we want to make this
into a spec it needs a home. In case WebApps can't or won't take it (given how
complicated rechartering it already is), DAP seem like a natural home for it.
I'd have to ask the group of course but I'm in favour.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
