Move contentSettings extension API out of experimental

Move contentSettings extension API out of experimental


BUG=71067
TEST=none

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=105301

[Bernhard Bauer, 2011-09-30 16:35:38]

Hi, 

as previously discussed over email, here is the CL to move the contentSettings
API out of experimental. Apart from the permission message, are there any other
requirements?

[Bernhard Bauer, 2011-10-06 09:04:17]

Aaron, Matt, could one of you take a look at this CL? Thanks!

[Pam (message me for reviews), 2011-10-06 09:30:04]

http://codereview.chromium.org/8071025/diff/2001/chrome/renderer/resources/ex...
File chrome/renderer/resources/extensions/renderer_process_bindings.js (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/8071025/diff/2001/chrome/renderer/resources/ex...
chrome/renderer/resources/extensions/renderer_process_bindings.js:313:
"contentSettings",
Drive-by: alphabetize

[Aaron Boodman, 2011-10-06 16:39:58]

What warning did you end up going with? It would be nice to have a few examples
of the settings we're talking about:

- web site settings (e.g., which sites can set cookies, show popups, etc)

[Patrick Nepper, 2011-10-07 10:48:00]

On 2011/10/06 16:39:58, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> What warning did you end up going with? It would be nice to have a few
examples
> of the settings we're talking about:
> 
> - web site settings (e.g., which sites can set cookies, show popups, etc)

sounds good to me. Specific suggestion (to be visually in line with other
permissions):

- website settings and permissions to set cookies, show popups, etc.

If this string proves to be too long, let's use:

- website settings and permissions

[Bernhard Bauer, 2011-10-07 13:12:52]

On 2011/10/07 10:48:00, Patrick Nepper wrote:
> On 2011/10/06 16:39:58, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> > What warning did you end up going with? It would be nice to have a few
> examples
> > of the settings we're talking about:
> > 
> > - web site settings (e.g., which sites can set cookies, show popups, etc)
> 
> sounds good to me. Specific suggestion (to be visually in line with other
> permissions):
> 
> - website settings and permissions to set cookies, show popups, etc.

Done.

> If this string proves to be too long, let's use:
> 
> - website settings and permissions

[Aaron Boodman, 2011-10-07 23:44:31]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:48 AM,  <nepper@chromium.org> wrote:
> On 2011/10/06 16:39:58, Aaron Boodman wrote:
>>
>> What warning did you end up going with? It would be nice to have a few
>
> examples
>>
>> of the settings we're talking about:
>
>> - web site settings (e.g., which sites can set cookies, show popups, etc)
>
> sounds good to me. Specific suggestion (to be visually in line with other
> permissions):
>
> - website settings and permissions to set cookies, show popups, etc.
>
> If this string proves to be too long, let's use:
>
> - website settings and permissions

The problem with both these is that it sounds like we're giving the
_extension_ permission to set cookies, show popups, etc. Actually what
it will have access to is quite a bit less scary.

Maybe we could get away with no permission string for this permission?
What is the worst that an extension can do with this permission?

- a

[battre, 2011-10-10 15:09:39]

On 2011/10/07 23:44:31, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:48 AM,  <mailto:nepper@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On 2011/10/06 16:39:58, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> >>
> >> What warning did you end up going with? It would be nice to have a few
> >
> > examples
> >>
> >> of the settings we're talking about:
> >
> >> - web site settings (e.g., which sites can set cookies, show popups, etc)
> >
> > sounds good to me. Specific suggestion (to be visually in line with other
> > permissions):
> >
> > - website settings and permissions to set cookies, show popups, etc.
> >
> > If this string proves to be too long, let's use:
> >
> > - website settings and permissions
> 
> The problem with both these is that it sounds like we're giving the
> _extension_ permission to set cookies, show popups, etc. Actually what
> it will have access to is quite a bit less scary.
> 
> Maybe we could get away with no permission string for this permission?
> What is the worst that an extension can do with this permission?
> 
> - a

The worst thing that can happen is that the user disabled cookies e.g. for an
ad-network and an extension sponsored by this ad-network overrides the setting.
Or: a user disables Java plugins due to security risks and an extension
overrides this setting globally (the extension does not need host permissions
for this).

In both cases the user should be able to see that his settings were overridden
in chrome://settings/content (there seems to be a bug but Bernhard is
investigating).

Best,
Dominic

[Aaron Boodman, 2011-10-10 23:13:45]

On 2011/10/10 15:09:39, battre wrote:
> On 2011/10/07 23:44:31, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:48 AM,  <mailto:nepper@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > On 2011/10/06 16:39:58, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> > >>
> > >> What warning did you end up going with? It would be nice to have a few
> > >
> > > examples
> > >>
> > >> of the settings we're talking about:
> > >
> > >> - web site settings (e.g., which sites can set cookies, show popups, etc)
> > >
> > > sounds good to me. Specific suggestion (to be visually in line with other
> > > permissions):
> > >
> > > - website settings and permissions to set cookies, show popups, etc.
> > >
> > > If this string proves to be too long, let's use:
> > >
> > > - website settings and permissions
> > 
> > The problem with both these is that it sounds like we're giving the
> > _extension_ permission to set cookies, show popups, etc. Actually what
> > it will have access to is quite a bit less scary.
> > 
> > Maybe we could get away with no permission string for this permission?
> > What is the worst that an extension can do with this permission?
> > 
> > - a
> 
> The worst thing that can happen is that the user disabled cookies e.g. for an
> ad-network and an extension sponsored by this ad-network overrides the
setting.
> Or: a user disables Java plugins due to security risks and an extension
> overrides this setting globally (the extension does not need host permissions
> for this).
> 
> In both cases the user should be able to see that his settings were overridden
> in chrome://settings/content (there seems to be a bug but Bernhard is
> investigating).
> 
> Best,
> Dominic

Ok, that does sound like something worthy of a permission, so I'll go back to my
previous stance. I can't think of any good wording though. We really need the
'more info' link in this dialog.

[Patrick Nepper, 2011-10-12 18:17:04]

On 2011/10/10 23:13:45, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> On 2011/10/10 15:09:39, battre wrote:
> > On 2011/10/07 23:44:31, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:48 AM,  <mailto:nepper@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > On 2011/10/06 16:39:58, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> What warning did you end up going with? It would be nice to have a few
> > > >
> > > > examples
> > > >>
> > > >> of the settings we're talking about:
> > > >
> > > >> - web site settings (e.g., which sites can set cookies, show popups,
etc)
> > > >
> > > > sounds good to me. Specific suggestion (to be visually in line with
other
> > > > permissions):
> > > >
> > > > - website settings and permissions to set cookies, show popups, etc.
> > > >
> > > > If this string proves to be too long, let's use:
> > > >
> > > > - website settings and permissions
> > > 
> > > The problem with both these is that it sounds like we're giving the
> > > _extension_ permission to set cookies, show popups, etc. Actually what
> > > it will have access to is quite a bit less scary.
> > > 
> > > Maybe we could get away with no permission string for this permission?
> > > What is the worst that an extension can do with this permission?
> > > 
> > > - a
> > 
> > The worst thing that can happen is that the user disabled cookies e.g. for
an
> > ad-network and an extension sponsored by this ad-network overrides the
> setting.
> > Or: a user disables Java plugins due to security risks and an extension
> > overrides this setting globally (the extension does not need host
permissions
> > for this).
> > 
> > In both cases the user should be able to see that his settings were
overridden
> > in chrome://settings/content (there seems to be a bug but Bernhard is
> > investigating).
> > 
> > Best,
> > Dominic
> 
> Ok, that does sound like something worthy of a permission, so I'll go back to
my
> previous stance. I can't think of any good wording though. We really need the
> 'more info' link in this dialog.

Hi Aaron,

I tried to reach you on chat (and will continue to do so), but in the meantime:

The permission dialog is modal, right? So in the current design the user could
not easily navigate away from it. So there are basically three options from my
perspective:

a) use a permission string only (status quo)

b) change the modality of the dialog and add a learn more link that leads the
user to a helpcenter page

c) add a progressive UI element that unfolds within the dialog once the user
clicks the learn more link

Personally, I'm very much inclined to option a) as I don't want to make the
user's experience for installing extensions more complicated. After all, I
believe many of the permissions we have in place are already very abstract. We
always focused on the impact a permission has, not so much what the extension
can do specifically.

So, I would strongly recommend to use a) a permission string only. The current
string is: "Website settings and permissions to set cookies, show popups, etc.".

I'm open to rephrasing this. Maybe a better impact-oriented phrasing would be:
"Your browser settings and website permissions"?

This is our only blocker for an M16 release at the moment, so I would be really
happy if we can resolve this today.

Thanks

Patrick

[Aaron Boodman, 2011-10-12 19:24:02]

Please use this warning for now:

[The extension will have access to:]

* Browser settings that control the websites which can include scripts, plugins,
and other related features

LGTM w/ this change.

[Patrick Nepper, 2011-10-12 19:24:20]

On 2011/10/12 18:17:04, Patrick Nepper wrote:
> On 2011/10/10 23:13:45, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> > On 2011/10/10 15:09:39, battre wrote:
> > > On 2011/10/07 23:44:31, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:48 AM,  <mailto:nepper@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > > On 2011/10/06 16:39:58, Aaron Boodman wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What warning did you end up going with? It would be nice to have a
few
> > > > >
> > > > > examples
> > > > >>
> > > > >> of the settings we're talking about:
> > > > >
> > > > >> - web site settings (e.g., which sites can set cookies, show popups,
> etc)
> > > > >
> > > > > sounds good to me. Specific suggestion (to be visually in line with
> other
> > > > > permissions):
> > > > >
> > > > > - website settings and permissions to set cookies, show popups, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > If this string proves to be too long, let's use:
> > > > >
> > > > > - website settings and permissions
> > > > 
> > > > The problem with both these is that it sounds like we're giving the
> > > > _extension_ permission to set cookies, show popups, etc. Actually what
> > > > it will have access to is quite a bit less scary.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe we could get away with no permission string for this permission?
> > > > What is the worst that an extension can do with this permission?
> > > > 
> > > > - a
> > > 
> > > The worst thing that can happen is that the user disabled cookies e.g. for
> an
> > > ad-network and an extension sponsored by this ad-network overrides the
> > setting.
> > > Or: a user disables Java plugins due to security risks and an extension
> > > overrides this setting globally (the extension does not need host
> permissions
> > > for this).
> > > 
> > > In both cases the user should be able to see that his settings were
> overridden
> > > in chrome://settings/content (there seems to be a bug but Bernhard is
> > > investigating).
> > > 
> > > Best,
> > > Dominic
> > 
> > Ok, that does sound like something worthy of a permission, so I'll go back
to
> my
> > previous stance. I can't think of any good wording though. We really need
the
> > 'more info' link in this dialog.
> 
> Hi Aaron,
> 
> I tried to reach you on chat (and will continue to do so), but in the
meantime:
> 
> The permission dialog is modal, right? So in the current design the user could
> not easily navigate away from it. So there are basically three options from my
> perspective:
> 
> a) use a permission string only (status quo)
> 
> b) change the modality of the dialog and add a learn more link that leads the
> user to a helpcenter page
> 
> c) add a progressive UI element that unfolds within the dialog once the user
> clicks the learn more link
> 
> Personally, I'm very much inclined to option a) as I don't want to make the
> user's experience for installing extensions more complicated. After all, I
> believe many of the permissions we have in place are already very abstract. We
> always focused on the impact a permission has, not so much what the extension
> can do specifically.
> 
> So, I would strongly recommend to use a) a permission string only. The current
> string is: "Website settings and permissions to set cookies, show popups,
etc.".
> 
> I'm open to rephrasing this. Maybe a better impact-oriented phrasing would be:
> "Your browser settings and website permissions"?
> 
> This is our only blocker for an M16 release at the moment, so I would be
really
> happy if we can resolve this today.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Patrick

As per discussion with Aaron: We will go with the following permission string
for this release:

"browser settings that control the websites which can include scripts, plugins,
and other related features"

(simultaneously we will start a discussion on how to further improve this string
for future releases and/or include a learn more link)

[kathyw, 2011-10-12 20:35:09]

How about (after talking with Mike West):

Settings that specify whether websites can use features such as cookies,
JavaScript, and plugins

[Aaron Boodman, 2011-10-12 22:22:57]

On 2011/10/12 20:35:09, kathyw wrote:
> How about (after talking with Mike West):
> 
> Settings that specify whether websites can use features such as cookies,
> JavaScript, and plugins

That is much better. Thanks so much, both of you.