[XHR] UTF-16 - do content sniffing or not?
Hi, I've just added a test loading UTF-16 data with XHR, and it exposes an implementation difference that should probably be discussed: Given a server which sends UTF-16 data with a UTF-16 BOM but does *not* send "charset=UTF-16" in the Content-Type header - should the browser detect the encoding, or just assume UTF-8 and return mojibake-ish data? Per my test, Chrome detects the UTF-16 encoding while Gecko doesn't. I think the spec currently says one should assume UTF-8 encoding in this scenario. Are WebKit/Blink - developers OK with changing their implementation? (The test currently asserts detecting UTF-16 is correct, pending discussion and clarification.) -Hallvord
Re: Proposal for a Permissions API
The Permissions API moved to the WebAppSec WG, and there's an open
call for comments on publishing its FPWD:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2015Mar/0131.html.
It would probably make more sense to discuss in that group.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Florian Bösch wrote:
> Time to revise this topic. Two data points:
>
> 1) Particularly with pointerlock (but also with other permission prompts
> that sneak up on the user) I often get the complaint from users along the
> lines of "I tried your stuff, but it didn't work." or "I tried your stuff,
> but it asked me to do X, I don't think it works".
>
> 2) MRI scans show that user attention dramatically drops when presented with
> a security prompt:
> http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/03/mris-show-our-brains-shutting-down-when-we-see-security-prompts/
>
> Permission/Security prompts are bad UX. Particularly the kind you need to
> prompt the user with along the way. And within that, even worse are the ones
> that pop up again and again (like the fullscreen popup).
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>> > On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, at 04:41, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >> I'm generally supportive of this direction.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure that that the PermissionStatus thing is needed. For
>> >> example in order to support bluetooth is might be better to make the
>> >> call look like:
>> >>
>> >> permissions.has("bluetooth", "fitbit").then(...);
>> >
>> > That's more Permission than PermissionStatus, right?
>> >
>> > What you proposed here would probably be something like that in WebIDL:
>> > Promise<> has(PermissionName name, any options);
>> >
>> > But really, we could make that option bag be a dictionary because it
>> > gives good context about what you are passing like what does "fitbit"
>> > means here? Is that a black listed device or a white listed one? The one
>> > you want to target?
>> >
>> > I agree that it might be unusual to have a required "name" than might
>> > often be used alone but it makes the API way more javascript-y and self
>> > explanatory. IMO, this call is nicer to read than the one you wrote
>> > above:
>> > permissions.has({ name: 'bluetooth', devices: 'fitbit' });
>> > because I understand what the call is trying to do. In addition, as you
>> > pointed, it gives a lot of flexibility.
>>
>> Belatedly, I'd like to suggest a slightly different model. Instead of
>> trying to stuff arbitrary queries into the permissions.has() call,
>> maybe expose the current permissions as data, and let the application
>> inspect them using custom code. This is likely to work better for
>> Bluetooth, since we're planning to have pages request devices by the
>> Services they expose, not their deviceIds, and a page may want to
>> check for either an available device exposing some services, or that a
>> device they've already opened hasn't been revoked.
>>
>> Getting permission revocation to update a UI correctly is also an
>> interesting problem. You could expose an event on permission change,
>> but given that templating frameworks are moving toward
>> Object.observe() to update themselves in response to model object
>> changes, that would require developers to write extra code to
>> propagate the permission changes into their models.
>>
>> So what if navigator.permissions just _was_ a suitable model object?
>> Make it, say, a Map from permission-name to an object defined by the
>> permission's standard, and extend Map to expose enough synthetic
>> change records that Object.observe(a_map) is useful.
>>
>> Jeffrey
>>
>
Re: Proposal for a Permissions API
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Florian Bösch wrote: > 2) MRI scans show that user attention dramatically drops when presented > with a security prompt: > http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/03/mris-show-our-brains-shutting-down-when-we-see-security-prompts/ > It's also likely the case that (as others have suggested) if you're doing a double security poll (or even a tripple one) ala: 1. Hey we need this permission to get started, do you want to grant it? 2. Click here to make us request this permission from you, remember to click the next dialog on "allow" 3. Actual permission dialog asking the permission. Then the attention loss effect is probably knocked on N-fold.
Re: Proposal for a Permissions API
On 2015-03-21 22:47, Florian Bösch wrote:
Time to revise this topic. Two data points:
1) Particularly with pointerlock (but also with other permission prompts
> that sneak up on the user) I often get the complaint from users along the
> lines of "I tried your stuff, but it didn't work." or "I tried your stuff,
> but it asked me to do X, I don't think it works".
2) MRI scans show that user attention dramatically drops when presented with
> a security prompt:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/03/mris-show-our-brains-shutting-down-when-we-see-security-prompts/
Permission/Security prompts are bad UX. Particularly the kind you need to prompt
> the user with along the way. And within that, even worse are the ones that
pop up again and again (like the fullscreen popup).
I agree with this. When skimming
https://webbluetoothcg.github.io/web-bluetooth/use-cases.html
I particularly noted the following lines:
"3.2.1 The Bluetooth API must only expose those parts of the general Bluetooth
protocol that present an acceptable risk of exploit"
This may lead to:
- Crippled functionality
- User's being confronted with questions they don't understand the consequences
of
like http://www.sconnect.com/FAQ/#permissionrequest
Although efforts making the Open Web more competitive with the Native/Platform
level are
motivated, I'm personally unconvinced that DUPLICATION is the right approach
for system-
level interfaces.
COMBINING these layers seems like a simpler way ahead. FWIW, I have sort of
"launched"
such a scheme: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/msg05005.html
What's the difference you may [rightfully] wonder? Well, the short version is
that it enables
any numbers of specific (single-purpose) interfaces that does exactly what you
want and at
worst needing a privacy prompt. These interfaces can also be defined (and
implemented!)
by different communities which allows for quicker turnaround which is quite
important if
you are set to compete with the "App" world.
Anders
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin mailto:jyass...@google.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Mounir Lamouri mailto:mou...@lamouri.fr>> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, at 04:41, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> I'm generally supportive of this direction.
>>
>> I'm not sure that that the PermissionStatus thing is needed. For
>> example in order to support bluetooth is might be better to make the
>> call look like:
>>
>> permissions.has("bluetooth", "fitbit").then(...);
>
> That's more Permission than PermissionStatus, right?
>
> What you proposed here would probably be something like that in WebIDL:
> Promise<> has(PermissionName name, any options);
>
> But really, we could make that option bag be a dictionary because it
> gives good context about what you are passing like what does "fitbit"
> means here? Is that a black listed device or a white listed one? The one
> you want to target?
>
> I agree that it might be unusual to have a required "name" than might
> often be used alone but it makes the API way more javascript-y and self
> explanatory. IMO, this call is nicer to read than the one you wrote
> above:
> permissions.has({ name: 'bluetooth', devices: 'fitbit' });
> because I understand what the call is trying to do. In addition, as you
> pointed, it gives a lot of flexibility.
Belatedly, I'd like to suggest a slightly different model. Instead of
trying to stuff arbitrary queries into the permissions.has() call,
maybe expose the current permissions as data, and let the application
inspect them using custom code. This is likely to work better for
Bluetooth, since we're planning to have pages request devices by the
Services they expose, not their deviceIds, and a page may want to
check for either an available device exposing some services, or that a
device they've already opened hasn't been revoked.
Getting permission revocation to update a UI correctly is also an
interesting problem. You could expose an event on permission change,
but given that templating frameworks are moving toward
Object.observe() to update themselves in response to model object
changes, that would require developers to write extra code to
propagate the permission changes into their models.
So what if navigator.permissions just _was_ a suitable model object?
Make it, say, a Map from permission-name to an object defined by the
permission's standard, and extend Map to expose enough synthetic
change records that Object.observe(a_map) is useful.
Jeffrey
