Capability Delegation #565
Comments
|
I'm not a 100% sure I understand this correctly (I filed some issues) but I assume the idea is that a parent that has user activation can forward that user activation to a child, but tie it to a particular feature to ensure the child doesn't use it for something else. So the user clicks in the parent and the parent wants the child to go fullscreen upon a click so they send a message to the child allowing it to go fullscreen. This consumes the click in the parent and the child now has the ability to go fullscreen if it so desires. I agree that seems useful. Coupling it with messaging seems reasonable. There's no other communication channel available to relay such a thing. |
|
Thanks @annevk, your first para is essentially the proposal here in simple term. Looking forward to your ideas and suggestions in the WICG repo. |
Support for the API has shipped in Chrome, with positive signals from Firefox: mozilla/standards-positions#565 Diff: ```json { "added": [ { "url": "https://wicg.github.io/capability-delegation/spec.html", "seriesComposition": "full", "shortname": "capability-delegation", "series": { "shortname": "capability-delegation", "currentSpecification": "capability-delegation", "title": "Capability Delegation", "shortTitle": "Capability Delegation", "nightlyUrl": "https://wicg.github.io/capability-delegation/spec.html" }, "organization": "W3C", "groups": [ { "name": "Web Platform Incubator Community Group", "url": "https://www.w3.org/community/wicg/" } ], "nightly": { "url": "https://wicg.github.io/capability-delegation/spec.html", "repository": "https://github.com/WICG/capability-delegation", "sourcePath": "spec.bs", "filename": "spec.html" }, "title": "Capability Delegation", "source": "spec", "shortTitle": "Capability Delegation", "categories": [ "browser" ] } ], "updated": [], "deleted": [] } ```
* Update review date of monitored specs * Add Digital Goods API to the list of specs Support for the API has shipped in Chrome. No known support from other browser vendors, but no objections either. Also see the intent to ship: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/2pjQ3O2GzDA/m/Uy-eRkB5BQAJ Diff: ```json { "added": [ { "url": "https://wicg.github.io/digital-goods/", "seriesComposition": "full", "shortname": "digital-goods", "series": { "shortname": "digital-goods", "currentSpecification": "digital-goods", "title": "Digital Goods API", "shortTitle": "Digital Goods API", "nightlyUrl": "https://wicg.github.io/digital-goods/" }, "organization": "W3C", "groups": [ { "name": "Web Platform Incubator Community Group", "url": "https://www.w3.org/community/wicg/" } ], "nightly": { "url": "https://wicg.github.io/digital-goods/", "repository": "https://github.com/WICG/digital-goods", "sourcePath": "spec.bs", "filename": "index.html" }, "title": "Digital Goods API", "source": "spec", "shortTitle": "Digital Goods API", "categories": [ "browser" ] } ], "updated": [], "deleted": [] } ``` * Add PNG spec While not yet perfect, the Editor's Draft now uses ReSpec. Diff: ```json { "added": [ { "url": "https://w3c.github.io/PNG-spec/", "seriesComposition": "full", "shortname": "PNG-spec", "series": { "shortname": "PNG-spec", "currentSpecification": "PNG-spec", "title": "Portable Network Graphics (PNG) Specification (Third Edition)", "shortTitle": "PNG", "nightlyUrl": "https://w3c.github.io/PNG-spec/" }, "organization": "W3C", "groups": [ { "name": "Portable Network Graphics (PNG) Working Group", "url": "https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/png/" } ], "nightly": { "url": "https://w3c.github.io/PNG-spec/", "repository": "https://github.com/w3c/PNG-spec", "sourcePath": "index.html", "filename": "index.html" }, "title": "Portable Network Graphics (PNG) Specification (Third Edition)", "source": "spec", "shortTitle": "PNG", "categories": [ "browser" ] } ], "updated": [], "deleted": [] } ``` * Drop Intl.NumberFormat proposal from monitor list Underlying specs have been added to the list already. * Drop clreq spec from monitor list The spec has been re-published with the right status since last review. * Add Capability Detection Support for the API has shipped in Chrome, with positive signals from Firefox: mozilla/standards-positions#565 Diff: ```json { "added": [ { "url": "https://wicg.github.io/capability-delegation/spec.html", "seriesComposition": "full", "shortname": "capability-delegation", "series": { "shortname": "capability-delegation", "currentSpecification": "capability-delegation", "title": "Capability Delegation", "shortTitle": "Capability Delegation", "nightlyUrl": "https://wicg.github.io/capability-delegation/spec.html" }, "organization": "W3C", "groups": [ { "name": "Web Platform Incubator Community Group", "url": "https://www.w3.org/community/wicg/" } ], "nightly": { "url": "https://wicg.github.io/capability-delegation/spec.html", "repository": "https://github.com/WICG/capability-delegation", "sourcePath": "spec.bs", "filename": "spec.html" }, "title": "Capability Delegation", "source": "spec", "shortTitle": "Capability Delegation", "categories": [ "browser" ] } ], "updated": [], "deleted": [] } ``` * Update monitor comment for Federated Credentials Management spec
|
blink-dev's Intent to Implement and Ship https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/7YkubntWi3Y/m/BKgFpsLYBQAJ There are several open issues filed by @annevk under https://github.com/WICG/capability-delegation/issues/ Does that mean the official position wouldn't be made before they are resolved? |
|
Adding a note to the last comment above: we have two intents on blink-dev to cover this:
|
|
I think with the reframing discussed in WICG/capability-delegation#9 (comment) whereby this essentially extends Permissions Policy's "allowed to use" with an option to also check (delegated) user activation this will be in a good shape, with a clear model for web developers and specification authors. At that point I'd recommend marking this as worth prototyping. |
|
I agree with @annevk here, and think we can mark this as "positive". |
|
We'd still like to see WICG/capability-delegation#9 fixed, even if it's largely editorial. |
|
I think that we should defer until WICG/capability-delegation#9 is resolved. I would have expected that issue to have been resolved in the last 9 months, but I see no movement. I would also prefer that this be integrated into permissions policy, rather than live as a standalone specification. |
|
Yes, we (Chrome) want to resolve WICG/capability-delegation#9 and other outstanding issues there so that at least our proposed HTML monkey patch can gracefully land sometime this year! We are currently looking into prioritizing this work. |
|
FYI: we have added this as one of our (Chromium/Interactions team) Q2 goals, hopefully we will be able to resolve all blockers to land the HTML spec. |
zcorpan
changed the title
|
@mustaqahmed what is the current status and plan for the open issues and upstreaming? |
Request for Mozilla Position on an Emerging Web Specification
Other information
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: