Other example than sync-xhr?

[annevk]

"sync-xhr" does not have multi-implementer agreement. Is there another feature that justifies this having a different name from permission-controlled features or some such?

[dveditz]

"sync-xhr" is mentioned as a note/example, but not actually in the list. Registry needs a description of criteria for inclusion in the document (spec link? spec at what level of officialness?). I'd prefer in the document itself but maybe it could be some explainer/rules document in your repo (second best).

[marcoscaceres]

"sync-xhr" does not have multi-implementer agreement.

We could use "gamepad" instead or something else. I'll dig around.

"sync-xhr" is mentioned as a note/example, but not actually in the list.

That's the point, "Not all permission policy tokens are powerful features". "sync-xhr" is not a "powerful feature", but it's a policy controlled feature.

However, reading the text again, I can see the confusion with how it's currently written.

[marcoscaceres]

Related: https://github.com/w3c/powerful-features-registry/issues/7 (would really appreciate your input there!)

[annevk]

Well, my point is that "sync-xhr" is proprietary at this point and so cannot be used as justification for the naming scheme.

[marcoscaceres]

Understood, how about "web-share" instead?

[marcoscaceres]

Sent https://github.com/w3c/powerful-features-registry/pull/9 ... hopefully that makes things more clear.

[annevk]

I see, I think what requires "express permission" is up to the user agent and therefore this distinction is not something I'd make in a standard. (One of the reasons I've suggested to merge Permissions and Permissions Policy.) One feature comes to mind where we'd probably never require "express permission" ("cross-origin-isolated"), but it also doesn't seem worth it to make the distinction for that.

[marcoscaceres]

I see, I think what requires "express permission" is up to the user agent and therefore this distinction is not something I'd make in a standard.

Hmmm... that's exactly the distinction we made in the Permission spec tho. It's about "asking express permission to use X" (via some UI or allow by enterprise/group policy other than Permissions Policy, because Permissions Policy can't ever "grant" permission to use something).

[annevk]

Right, Permissions Policy grants the ability to request. Whether a request is surfaced to the end user or implicitly granted, is up to the user agent.

[marcoscaceres]

Ok, let's pick the above up in #7 (we are aligned on the definition, and I think this is were it starts getting interesting!).