David Bird <[email protected]> wrote:
> Agreed. Except, I'd argue that the "API" could be seen as the browser
> itself - the "universal" API that everyone is familiar with and that
> offers endless possibilities. Today, browsers offer largely the same
I don't mind if there is a JS client available for download, but I feel that
the API needs to be real. On my phone, many of the "core" interactions that
occur over HTTP do not use the stock browser: Facebook (lite), G+, Hangout,
Strava, Tripit, etc.
Secondly, in a classroom situation, it might be worth having the ICMP
receiver on the child's system do something different. In particular
it can not open up the child's browser for the override code.
(Because the teacher will be subject to keystroke capture attacks by
the student)
> As for as API for login, as I previously mentioned, that already
> exists and widely deployed and used. Replacing WISPr is a GOOD idea,
> but I question whether there will be motivation to actually deploy it
> (unless we make a mistake and it is useful for additional commercial
> trickery in public access).
okay, I don't know WISPr's capabilities.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature