[whatwg] Installed Apps

David Levin levin at chromium.org
Tue Jul 28 22:16:17 PDT 2009

It feels like this has become a discussion of which dangerous feature is
more dangerous....
Several browsers (or browser like things) have mechanisms for allowing the
installation of potentially dangerous things.

For example, FireFox has the extension install mechanism.  Google Chrome
has/must have something for extensions.  There is Prism and various html
desktop gadget engines. So far, it sounds like many folks are saying these
persistent contexts belong more to this domain. Is it interesting discussing
the api/behavior for things exposed in that domain?


On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org>wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Michael Davidson <mpd at google.com> wrote:
>> I agree 100%. I'm only trying to argue that from a user perspective,
>> access that we currently have acceptable UI for, e.g. camera hardware,
>> is about as scary as agreeing to let a web app run in the background.
>> The consequences of a malicious app that gets either permission are
>> dire.
> One difference is that photos of you in your underwear are probably not
> easily monetizable, whereas botnets are, so you'll see a lot more
> exploitation of features that let you create botnets.
> Rob
> --
> "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
> the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
> healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
> own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
> 53:5-6]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090728/ffa823b3/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list