See also: IRC log
<Florian> Scribenick: mikepie
<kmag> https://gist.github.com/97fa5b3cf4599df92ee5066bde47c162
<Florian> Scribenick: Florian
kmag: this link is what I plan to
send
... there's basicaly to options:
... one use the check any permission attribute, and one that
breaks it down and specifies it in words
<andrey-r> The IDL looks good
kmag: I can walk you through this
mikepie: please do
kmag: there's a top level
interface call extension-global
... it has one property, "browser"
... [... describes the content of the mail pasted above
...]
mikepie: I like this model a
lot
... it is a clean way to extend window
<andrey-r> I agree a little more details would help for anyone on mailing list
mikepie: it can work for dynamic capabilities, added during execution
kmag: that's the way it is done in webapps for the navigator property, saying this must only be exposed in certain context
andrey-r: more details would be
good, people on the mailing list will have a hard time
understanding
... but I like the proposal
Florian: where will you send it? both lists?
kmag: Ok
<andrey-r> both list would be good
mikepie: any thoughts about the events object?
kmag: would have to give a
different name, "tabs" is a terrible name
... Call it broadcaster or something?
mikepie: if we can move forward
with this, I can use it in drafts
... might be some push back, so don't want to rush into using
it
kmag: the only push back could be about using attributes that aren't part of the spec
mikepie: can go with browser or navigator.extension, and prefer browser, but Opera was preferring the other one.
<andrey-r> I am ok with both
kmag: for the protocol, browser-extensions:// feels too long
<mikepie> How about browser-ext:// ?
<andrey-r> browser-ext:// - Yes
Florian: is browser:// too short for the protocol name?
mikepie: Microsoft people expressed concern about extension://
Florian: browserext:// ?
kmag: Happy eitherway
mikepie: I think browserext:// is good
<andrey-r> agree
Florian: and just browser for the object?
<mikepie> And browser.* for object
Florian: Opera proposed "nex", do we want to to follow that?
mikepie: it does make sense, but I prefer what we just said
kmag: I'd be ok for the top level object, not the protocol
Florian: Seem there's no objection either way, but a preference for browser, browserext:// Should we resolve on that?
mikepie: want to loop in Shwetank
Florian: resolutions during meeting are provisional anway
RESOLUTION: use "browser" as the top level object, and browserext:// as the protocol name
Florian: do we need to register that protocol?
mikepie: I can do that
<scribe> ACTION: mikepie to register browserext:// [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/09-browserext-minutes.html#action01]
mikepie: how do we do that? should I prepare something for the next meeting
Florian: Set it up as a github issue, and we discuss there?
mikepie: Sounds good.
Florian: once we have that and the IDL, we can make a spec that looks like one
mikepie: yes
Florian: what do we want to do there?
andrey-r: meet
Florian: I've requested a time slot
mikepie: First time for CGs to meet at TPAC right?
Florian: yes
mikepie: should we try and have a more complete spec to review?
andrey-r: yes, hard to be productive otherwise
mikepie: should native messaging be together?
<andrey-r> Native messaging is very important topic
Florian: we can only book for the CG
andrey-r: is this going to be madness again, with stickers on the board
<andrey-r> sorry
Florian: madness is the wednesday
unconference, we should get a sane time slot
... I'll follow up
<scribe> ACTION: florian to check if we got the time slot requested [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/09-browserext-minutes.html#action02]
<andrey-r> I was saying that I would prefer to meet as early as possible, but if thursday is best for most that's fine
Florian: Houdini shows that you can have productive meetings for high level discussions, but in our case having concrete things to discuss would indeed be better, so let's try to have a draft spec
Florian: would be good to have topics ahead of time, please file github issues or ML threads
mikepie: when do we meet next
andrey-r: anytime
Florian: not next week, but anytime
mikepie: June 29, same time?
RESOLUTION: next meeting June 29, same time
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found ScribeNick: mikepie WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <mikepie> ... Found ScribeNick: Florian Inferring Scribes: mikepie, Florian Scribes: mikepie, Florian ScribeNicks: mikepie, Florian Present: andrey-r kmag mikepie Florian Got date from IRC log name: 09 Jun 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/06/09-browserext-minutes.html People with action items: florian mikepie[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]