Use PermissionState instead of PersistentStoragePermission

[mounirlamouri]

The spec is re-introducing its own permission enum instead of re-using the one from the Permissions API. It would be great to re-use the Permissions API's PermissionState instead of PersistentStoragePermission.

[domenic]

As far as I can tell this is an intentional move to align with the existing platform conventions ("default") instead of the new proposal, only implemented in Chrome's Permissions API, of "prompt".

[mounirlamouri]

• "prompt" is also used by the Push API
• Permissions API is about to ship in Firefox

[domenic]

Is it? Sentiment looks mixed. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/7RnCrXoXdG4

[mounirlamouri]

Mozilla's Intent to Ship do not really work the same way as Blink's. I would be surprised if the API doesn't ship.

[annevk]

It's a little hard to build on the Permission API if basic stuff like w3c/permissions#33 is not getting fixed. And e.g., the permission store does not take origin as an argument despite entries being associated with one. It doesn't seem to make much sense at the moment.

[sicking]

To be clear, Firefox is now shipping the permission API.

I don't see it as likely that we would implement the StorageManager.persistentPermission() function since that functionality is better provided through the permission API instead.

I.e. we should not let editorial issues affect what API we use. Ultimately what needs to be defined is what string should be passed to the permission API in order to check permission to use persistent storage. At least until we've gotten the various specs into the needed state to define this formally. I propose using "persistent-storage", but I don't actually care at all what the string is.

[annevk]

I guess that's fair. Could you file a new issue on that or mention it in #14?