Specify "Use another account". #678
Conversation
This depends on PR w3c-fedid#660 (Mode API). Bug: w3c-fedid/active-mode#3
spec/index.bs
Outdated
| @@ -804,6 +804,10 @@ the exception thrown. | |||
| 1. Let |config| be the result of running [=fetch the config file=] with | |||
| |provider| and |globalObject|. | |||
| 1. If |config| is failure, return (failure, false). | |||
| 1. Let |modeSettings| be |config|.{{IdentityProviderAPIConfig/modes}}. | |||
| {{IdentityProviderModes/active}} if |options|.{{IdentityCredentialRequestOptions/mode}} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm {{IdentityCredentialRequestOptions/mode}} is not linking in the preview?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will only be linked once PR #660 (mode API) lands. I don't know how to do PRs that depend on one another.
I updated the PR to add the additional logic where required, PTAL |
| To <dfn>request permission to sign-up</dfn> the user with a given an {{IdentityProviderAccount}} | ||
| |account|, some {{IdentityProviderModeSettings}} |modeSettings|, an {{IdentityProviderAPIConfig}} | ||
| |config|, an {{IdentityProviderRequestOptions}} |provider|, and a |globalObject|, run the following | ||
| steps. This returns a boolean. | ||
| 1. Assert: These steps are running [=in parallel=]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The parallel steps would be better presented as bullets (which might bullets within a numbered step), rather than as numbered steps. As this stands, I am unsure exactly which steps are running in parallel.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would not be correct. Please check the definition of "in parallel": https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/infrastructure.html#in-parallel
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The definition of "in parallel" is not sufficient for me (and I have some familiarity with the subject) to know whether the numbered steps (1)-(20) of which this Assert is (1) are to run in parallel with each other (which appears possible, and indeed, the most likely meaning) or that this sequence of 20 steps is to occur in parallel with other operations (sequences, single steps, etc.) in the spec.
Presuming that one goal of writing this specification is to have it be comprehensible by readers who are new to the subject, I suggest that some rewording would be helpful.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A PR to the HTML spec is welcome, but I think it's pretty clear personally:
means those steps are to be run, one after another
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"In parallel" does not mean "in sequence", no matter what spec is written as if it does.
Also, I highly doubt that most readers of this spec will go to the HTML spec, so while I may well submit a PR there (if I can find where to do so; it wasn't obvious when I looked for it yesterday), I think it better to provide more clarity in the FedCM spec.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For better or worse, "in parallel" is an existing term in specland. Ted, do you have a specific suggestion for how to improve this?
In general we should assume that readers either know what these terms mean or click through to their definition, IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(https://github.com/whatwg/html/blob/main/source is where you would send PRs for the HTML spec)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately, GitHub's web interface (my primary tool) can't handle docs the size of that WHATWG source. But, I was able to view it, and noted the "parallel queue".
<p>A <dfn export>parallel queue</dfn> represents a queue of algorithm steps that must be run in
series.</p>
I think that's a more apt description of this 20-step sequence. Something like
| 1. Assert: These steps are running [=in parallel=]. | |
| 1. Assert: These steps comprise a [=parallel queue=] that should run [=in parallel=] with any other active algorithms and/or [=parallel queues=]. |
(That does presume that plurals of defined terms are properly handled; the last might need change from [=parallel queues=] to [=parallel queue=].)
I've added a note to whatwg/html#10049, but noting that they have 1923 open issues and 169 pending pull requests, I don't have high hopes of it being addressed in a timely fashion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@domenic — Your thumb-down emoji doesn't communicate even as well as the "in parallel" that is meant to be understood as some language other than English. If you have an argument against my points, please do me the courtesy of writing it out.
| 1. The user agent MAY use the | ||
| {{IdentityCredentialRequestOptions/context}} and |options|'s |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this not be as above (lines 909–910), i.e., —
| 1. The user agent MAY use the | |
| {{IdentityCredentialRequestOptions/context}} and |options|'s | |
| 1. The user agent MAY use the |options|'s | |
| {{IdentityCredentialRequestOptions/context}} and |options|'s |
|
Discussed on https://github.com/fedidcg/meetings/blob/main/2024/2024-11-26-notes.md. Needs further review. |
This depends on PR #660 (Mode API).
Bug: w3c-fedid/active-mode#3
Preview | Diff