*Nilsson, Claes1 [mailto:claes1.nils...@sonymobile.com]
*Sent:* Friday, March 6, 2015 10:39 AM
*To:* 'Kenneth Rohde Christiansen'; Arthur Barstow; public-webapps
*Subject:* RE: [manifest] RE: Manifest for web application; review deadline
March 5
Ok thanks Kenneth. I assume that you refer to the Trust
Kostiainen, Anssi; Arthur
Barstow; public-webapps
Subject: RE: [manifest] RE: Manifest for web application; review deadline March
5
Yes, indeed. I just didn´t remember the final name.
Does that cover your first question?
Regarding the second questions, Anssi wrote an extension spec:
http://
]
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 10:39 AM
To: 'Kenneth Rohde Christiansen'; Arthur Barstow; public-webapps
Subject: RE: [manifest] RE: Manifest for web application; review deadline March
5
Ok thanks Kenneth. I assume that you refer to the Trust & Permissions Community
Group, https://www.w3
apps
Subject: Re: [manifest] RE: Manifest for web application; review deadline March
5
Hi Claes,
The web app manifest spec allows extensions (it has extension points), so we
would expect the Permissions WG/CG to come up with a proper way to deal with
permissions. If they come to the conclusion t
Hi Claes,
The web app manifest spec allows extensions (it has extension points), so
we would expect the Permissions WG/CG to come up with a proper way to deal
with permissions. If they come to the conclusion that we need some
permission field in the manifest, their spec can add that. It is not yet
Hi,
We support that this version of the specification is moved to Candidate status
but we have a few comments/questions:
In this version 1 we miss:
* A "permissions" field
* A "content security policy field". This is only included as a way to state
allowed origins from which the manifest file
