Build: B2G18 12/19/2012 Device: Unagi Steps: 1. Go to http://www.se.rit.edu/~jds2501/webapi_permissions_test.html in the browser 2. Select FM Radio Test Expected: A permission prompt should appear asking the user if it's okay to grant this website access to the fmradio. Actual: Nothing happens. The error console indicates that navigator.mozFMRadio isn't even defined in a browser context: 12-23 00:05:48.200: E/GeckoConsole(2103): [JavaScript Error: "TypeError: navigator.mozFMRadio is null" {file: "http://www.se.rit.edu/~jds2501/webapi_harnesses.js" line: 45}] However, the perms matrix indicates that a developer should be able to access this API in the browser with PROMPT_ACTION.

Note - if I install a hosted app that calls out a permission for fmradio directly, then I will be able to access the fmradio implicitly in a hosted app. See http://jds2501.github.com/webapi-permissions-tests/.

I thought we were restricting fmradio permissions to privileged apps.

Data comparison: Permissions Matrix states that the fmradio permission has the following perms: * Web Content - PROMPT_ACTION * Installed Web App - ALLOW_ACTION * Privileged Web App - ALLOW_ACTION * Certified Web App - ALLOW_ACTION Permissions Installer in code states that the fmradio permission has the following perms: fmradio: { app: ALLOW_ACTION, privileged: ALLOW_ACTION, certified: ALLOW_ACTION }, Current behavior by testing reflects: * Web Content - DENY_ACTION * Installed Web App - ALLOW_ACTION * Privileged Web App - ALLOW_ACTION * Certified Web App - ALLOW_ACTION

Hi all, We do have permission restrictions for fmradio. I will find out why it does not prompt the page when accessing by web content.

jonas, what do you want to do here? should FM be exposed to the web.

This was somethjng we initially intended to do. But given that it hasn't been done yet I think this is a v2 feature. Especially considering that the API isn't working well with multiple simultaneous users.

I note that permission has been changed to deny in the basecamp permissions spreadsheet, so I am going to close this. If there is a desire to expose this API to web later, then that will need a separate bug.