[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Public WebGL] about the VENDOR, RENDERER, and VERSION strings
- To: "Benoit Jacob" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [Public WebGL] about the VENDOR, RENDERER, and VERSION strings
- From: email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:54:42 -0800
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, "public webgl" <email@example.com>, "Mark Callow" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sjbaker.org; h=message-id :in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to:cc:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sjbaker.org; bh=cOXBO 0m9QZWsxlSUeLWXT+xAUxw=; b=nMsQiS1Fcw3eiU0TdmKH/KiflUNI+MwCDfAyN PkvBSjK+AU4oD9UAiVw1fPdFpxt0BQhUrc3/9tQMaui8quWditxsadJI4J+glYBV O6j49i7WBc+uQ1KGxZuXvUZFYzHfLEIAQz+/l2n7VP8rhkyFeKipwGbL11yv9qdn /UunGU=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sjbaker.org; h=message-id :in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to:cc:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sjbaker.org; b=ImRV/RtT7HZIC1UQk4t3KxkK68Qurvv90Xj+sm+zk3iTpFvusdgihcmoMrPUz racOXFZGLIZvh9v0sl3LYqtgyhKsBMgYau4ZiUxGhbCCHcalLk1jEQL8xVpZGCop HnbbDhhS5jhTSt77LA+EBHS3xFWgH8GMCPIJXL1hUirIUQ=
- In-reply-to: <1306527234.447738.1291145802310.JavaMail.email@example.com>
- List-id: Public WebGL Mailing List <public_webgl.khronos.org>
- References: <1306527234.447738.1291145802310.JavaMail.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
- User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21
> ----- Original Message -----
>> If we have to do something - I'd prefer a simple check-box in
>> Preferences/Privacy saying:
>> [ ] Hide graphics card/driver details from online applications.
>> (WARNING: May significantly degrade graphics performance)
> I would essentially be OK with this, provided that the default is to hide.
both enabled by default...this is a similar problem.
> I would turn this into a more general option like "Allow Web pages to
> obtain information about my computer system", unchecked by default, and I
> wouldn't print a performance warning there.
No!! I **STRONGLY** disagree! That wording implies to the end user that
these web pages can read files off their disk - inventory their porn
collection and steal their credit card numbers.
This is nothing like as serious as that. All we're doing is allowing the
web site to find out what kind of graphics card you have...something they
could very likely figure out themselves if they were bad guys.
My wording is all that's required.
Also, the performance warning is most certainly required - how else will
the end user know that there is a downside to checking the box? We need
to be clear and honest about what this is. They are exchanging some
nebulous (and probably non-existant) modicum of privacy for a basically
shitty online gaming experience. The minimum settings implied by the
conditions I suggested will reduce the nicest computer on the planet to
the quality level of the nastiest cell-phone. It's unfair to hide that
kind of thing from people - and we have nothing whatever to lose by
explaining what the checkbox does.
> Yes, content would be able to tell if it's checked by checking the
> RENDERER value --- "Mozilla" would mean we're not allowing content to get
> system information. We could even agree on a browser-agnostic string like
> an empty string.
> I will probably take this to a firefox mailing list since this is no
> longer WebGL discussion.
So long as the message that we NEED to be able to expose these strings is
clearly expressed to the folk on that mailing list. They won't understand
the issues otherwise.
You are currently subscribed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to email@example.com with
the following command in the body of your email: