Define permission lifetimes #287

marcoscaceres · 2021-08-31T07:36:57Z

closes #233

Exports [=permission/lifetimes=].

Preview | Diff

tomayac · 2021-08-31T07:45:20Z

Woohoo, thanks for specifying this :-) That's it, that's the comment.

miketaylr

LGTM, just a couple of editorial notes.

index.html

marcoscaceres · 2021-08-31T14:08:57Z

Thanks @tomayac! It's a start 🙏 Any further feedback you can provide is always welcome! You always provide great feedback.

index.html

Co-authored-by: Jeffrey Yasskin <[email protected]>

jyasskin

Thanks, I think this works for integrating the lifetime into the algorithms.

index.html

jyasskin · 2021-11-11T12:41:54Z

index.html

+              </p>
+              <p>
+                When the permission [=permission/lifetime=] expires for an origin, and if there are
+                [=browsing contexts=] present pertaining to the [=permission=]'s associated origin,


Does "pertaining to" have a precise definition?

No... I was hesitant to use that word. I'm open to suggestions as to how to make that association (I'll give that some further thought too).

I think we're trying to say, if you're the top-level browsing context for a given origin and have any ancestor browsing contexts, revoke permission for all browsing contexts? I guess https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#nested-browsing-contexts gives you most of what you need.

It should be possible to treat it like a map, in that we can just grab all any/all browsing contexts associated with an origin (not really worrying if they are nested or not.)

index.html

jyasskin · 2021-11-11T12:55:31Z

index.html

+              <p>
+                When the permission [=permission/lifetime=] expires for an origin, and if there are
+                [=browsing contexts=] present pertaining to the [=permission=]'s associated origin,
+                the user agent MUST run the [=powerful feature/permission revocation algorithm=].


Run it where? "Queue a task to run the algorithm on each browsing context's event loop"?

Yeah, something like that could work... will add it.

BTW: I think we need to relook at the "permission revocation algorithm"... it seems to call it self recursively.

index.html

jyasskin · 2021-11-11T13:14:55Z

index.html

+                [=browsing contexts=] present pertaining to the [=permission=]'s associated origin,
+                the user agent MUST run the [=powerful feature/permission revocation algorithm=].
+                Alternatively, if there is no [=browsing contexts=] present, the user agent MUST
+                revoke a permission for the origin by setting it back to its default [=permission


"Setting" a permission state isn't really defined in this spec, in order to give UAs lots of freedom of how to infer what the user wants. I think it's clear enough what you mean here, but it could help to define "setting a descriptor's permission state to X" as something like "as if the UA had returned X when reading the descriptor's permission state for some group of settings objects".

Good suggestion.

"Setting" a permission state isn't really defined in this spec, in order to give UAs lots of freedom of how to infer what the user wants.

I think that's fine, but conceptually there is still some datastore somewhere that gets updated (that is, a permission is bound to an origin or a realm or whatever). When the update happens, it gets asynchronously propagated.

I think it's clear enough what you mean here, but it could help to define "setting a descriptor's permission state to X" as something like "as if the UA had returned X when reading the descriptor's permission state for some group of settings objects".

Upon reflection, I think we should do this as a followup, because it gets into the problem above about conceptualizing how permissions are actually stored (or how we will pretend they are stored for the purpose of the specification).

index.html

Co-authored-by: Jeffrey Yasskin <[email protected]>

miketaylr

Looks pretty good to me, pending @jyasskin's comments.

miketaylr · 2021-11-12T22:47:18Z

index.html

+              </p>
+              <p>
+                When the permission [=permission/lifetime=] expires for an origin, and if there are
+                [=browsing contexts=] present pertaining to the [=permission=]'s associated origin,


I think we're trying to say, if you're the top-level browsing context for a given origin and have any ancestor browsing contexts, revoke permission for all browsing contexts? I guess https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#nested-browsing-contexts gives you most of what you need.

marcoscaceres · 2021-11-23T22:20:56Z

I’m going ahead and merging this as it gives us a good foundation to go off (and it’s blocking geo).

@marcoscaceres

SHA: 8bf9509 Reason: push, by @marcoscaceres Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

marcoscaceres requested a review from miketaylr August 31, 2021 07:37

marcoscaceres mentioned this pull request Aug 31, 2021

Suggest permission lifetimes? w3c/geolocation#69

Closed

miketaylr approved these changes Aug 31, 2021

View reviewed changes

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

jyasskin requested changes Aug 31, 2021

View reviewed changes

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

marcoscaceres commented Sep 1, 2021

View reviewed changes

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

marcoscaceres mentioned this pull request Sep 29, 2021

CR Request for Geolocation API w3c/transitions#373

Closed

marcoscaceres and others added 5 commits November 11, 2021 17:32

Define permission lifetimes

f52e01b

Fix push reference

e7c2a9e

Update index.html

926e28f

Co-authored-by: Jeffrey Yasskin <[email protected]>

Update index.html

17f8e82

Review feedback + rewrite

fea3971

marcoscaceres force-pushed the permission_lifetime branch from 7e595a4 to fea3971 Compare November 11, 2021 07:10

marcoscaceres marked this pull request as ready for review November 11, 2021 07:12

Fixup wording

fe06c6d

marcoscaceres requested a review from jyasskin November 11, 2021 07:14

jyasskin reviewed Nov 11, 2021

View reviewed changes

jyasskin requested a review from miketaylr November 11, 2021 13:22

Apply suggestions from code review

e698eb7

Co-authored-by: Jeffrey Yasskin <[email protected]>

miketaylr reviewed Nov 12, 2021

View reviewed changes

marcoscaceres mentioned this pull request Nov 15, 2021

Suggest permission lifetimes w3c/geolocation#108

Merged

3 tasks

Queue the change

69a5c32

marcoscaceres merged commit 8bf9509 into main Nov 23, 2021

marcoscaceres deleted the permission_lifetime branch November 23, 2021 22:21

github-actions bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 23, 2021

Define permission’s lifetimes (#287)

8f2226f

SHA: 8bf9509 Reason: push, by @marcoscaceres Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

Define permission lifetimes #287

Define permission lifetimes #287

Uh oh!

Conversation

marcoscaceres commented Aug 31, 2021 • edited by pr-preview bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

tomayac commented Aug 31, 2021

Uh oh!

miketaylr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

marcoscaceres commented Aug 31, 2021

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jyasskin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

miketaylr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marcoscaceres commented Nov 23, 2021

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

marcoscaceres commented Aug 31, 2021 •

edited by pr-preview bot

Loading