Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 2, 2019. It is now read-only.

Split out ApplicationManagement and related sections #105

Closed
wants to merge 38 commits into from

Conversation

anssiko
Copy link
Member

@anssiko anssiko commented Jun 10, 2013

Split ApplicationManagement interface and other parts of the Runtime spec relevant to privileged applications only into their own spec, see:

http://anssiko.github.io/runtime/index.html
http://anssiko.github.io/runtime/privileged.html

See also:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Jun/0005.html

Given there are relatively many commits in this PR, here's a short summary to ease the review:

The first 11 commits in this PR ("remove X section") are about taking index.html as a starting point for privileged.html and removing all sections that are not specific to privileged applications (there's a typo in the first commit message, should be "use index.html as a starting point for privileged.html").

The remaining commits sans the last one are non-normative changes to make the extension spec (privileged.html) a valid stand-alone spec.

The last commit is about removing sections that were split into the extensions spec (privileged.html) from index.html.

anssiko added 30 commits June 4, 2013 15:20
@martap
Copy link
Member

martap commented Jun 13, 2013

Can we add any link to "Privileged Applications Extensions" in "Runtime and Security Model for Web Applications"? Apart from that I like idea of splitting it up.

@jplyle
Copy link
Contributor

jplyle commented Jun 18, 2013

I'm in favour of splitting these parts from the main specification. I would like to see all APIs that are only accessible to 'privileged' applications to link directly to this extension.

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Jun 18, 2013

@martap Thanks for the suggestion. I've updated the PR, let me know if anssiko/runtime@e7ffb9f addresses your concern.

@jplyle Thanks for your review. Do you mean all APIs accessible to privileged applications only must normatively reference the Privileged Applications Extensions spec? If so, I agree with you.

@martap
Copy link
Member

martap commented Jun 18, 2013

@anssiko 👍 yes this link is fine. Thanks!

Can you also add one sentence in section "10. Permissions"? I would expect to find this information in Permissions in the first place so it seems to be natural to repeat there also. What do you think?

It could be something short like that i.e.:
"Privileged applications are described in separate specification: Privileged Applications Extensions"

@jplyle
Copy link
Contributor

jplyle commented Jun 18, 2013

@anssiko Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Glad you agree.

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Jun 18, 2013

@martap I agree with you, so I added another note to the Permissions section, see anssiko/runtime@020f73f. You can view both the notes in the context of the spec at http://anssiko.github.io/runtime/index.html. I made this a note for now to clearly highlight content that was split out. Let me know if this works for you.

@martap
Copy link
Member

martap commented Jun 19, 2013

@anssiko 👍 yes it looks super :) thanks!

@anssiko
Copy link
Member Author

anssiko commented Sep 7, 2017

[Cleaning up old open PRs. The work on this spec ended in 2015: https://www.w3.org/TR/runtime/]

@anssiko anssiko closed this Sep 7, 2017
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants