|
| 1 | +# Proposal: `initial_permissions` and `initial_host_permissions` |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +**Summary** |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +`initial_permissions` and `initial_host_permissions` will allow extension |
| 6 | +authors to declare the permissions browsers may prompt extension users |
| 7 | +at initial installation time. |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +**Document Metadata** |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +**Author:** Carlos Jeurissen |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +**Sponsoring Browser:** TBD |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +**Created:** 2025-10-05 |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +**Related Issues:** https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/711, https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/116, https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/700, https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/227 |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | +## Motivation |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +### Objective |
| 22 | + |
| 23 | +`initial_permissions` and `initial_host_permissions` will allow extension |
| 24 | +authors to declare the permissions browsers may prompt extension users |
| 25 | +at initial installation time. |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +Existing options like `permissions` and `host_permissions` cause issues |
| 28 | +when introducing new permissions to users on update-time. |
| 29 | + |
| 30 | +#### Use Cases |
| 31 | + |
| 32 | +1) Make it easier for extension authors to introduce new permissions. This will |
| 33 | +also reduce the amount of extension authors attempting to future-proof their |
| 34 | +extension with permissions they do not need yet. |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +2) Be more semantic. The purpose of `permissions` is ambiguous, which |
| 37 | +`initial_permissions` intends to solve. |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | +3) Suppress automatically hoisting of `host_permissions` when declaring |
| 40 | +`content_scripts` in the manifest. This reduces the need for registering |
| 41 | +content scripts dynamically with all potential bugs associated. |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | +### Known Consumers |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +1) Any extension author wanting to be more cautious and intentional with their |
| 46 | +permission declarations. |
| 47 | + |
| 48 | +2) Extension authors introducing new (host) permissions in updates. |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | +3) Extension developers which want to offer certain content scripts by default |
| 51 | +but not request all host permissions on initial installation. |
| 52 | + |
| 53 | +## Specification |
| 54 | + |
| 55 | +### Schema |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | +```ts |
| 58 | +interface Manifest { |
| 59 | + initial_permissions: string[]; |
| 60 | + initial_host_permissions: string[]; |
| 61 | +} |
| 62 | +``` |
| 63 | + |
| 64 | +### Behavior |
| 65 | + |
| 66 | +`initial_permissions` will take over the permission prompt on initial |
| 67 | +installation of the existing `permissions` field. In supported browsers, |
| 68 | +permissions in `permissions` should be treated as `optional_permissions` |
| 69 | +unless they are specified in `initial_permissions`. |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | +Same goes for `initial_host_permissions` and `optional_host_permissions`. |
| 72 | + |
| 73 | +If `initial_host_permissions` is specified in the manifest as empty or non-empty |
| 74 | +array of permissions, any `host_permissions` triggered by the `matches` |
| 75 | +properties should be treated as `optional_host_permissions` instead of |
| 76 | +`host_permissions`. |
| 77 | + |
| 78 | +If new permissions will be added in an update to `initial_permissions`, these |
| 79 | +new permissions will be treated as `optional_permissions` for existing users. |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +### New Permissions |
| 82 | + |
| 83 | +None |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | +## Security and Privacy |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | +### Exposed Sensitive Data |
| 88 | + |
| 89 | +None |
| 90 | + |
| 91 | +### Abuse Mitigations |
| 92 | + |
| 93 | +Reduced abuse risk as extension users may get confused with current |
| 94 | +permission update behaviors in existing browsers. |
| 95 | + |
| 96 | +### Additional Security Considerations |
| 97 | + |
| 98 | +None |
| 99 | + |
| 100 | +## Alternatives |
| 101 | + |
| 102 | +### Existing Workarounds |
| 103 | + |
| 104 | +1) Using `optional_permissions` for all new permissions. However this makes the |
| 105 | +onboarding experience confusing and not as smooth as it could be. |
| 106 | + |
| 107 | +2) Using `chrome.scripting.registerContentScripts()`. This is dynamic instead of |
| 108 | +declarative with the risk of registration and background scripting lifetime bugs. |
| 109 | + |
| 110 | +### Open Web API |
| 111 | + |
| 112 | +This is a concept specific to browser extensions. |
| 113 | + |
| 114 | +## Implementation Notes |
| 115 | + |
| 116 | +An empty permissions declaration of `initial_host_permissions` would be valid |
| 117 | +as it would suppress the hoisting of `content_scripts` permissions. |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | +## Future Work |
| 120 | + |
| 121 | +1) Always disable the automatic hoisting of `content_scripts`. This may need a |
| 122 | +manifest update. |
| 123 | + |
| 124 | +2) Either remove the non descriptive `permissions` and `host_permissions` OR |
| 125 | +remove `optional_permissions` and `optional_host_permissions` and always treat |
| 126 | +the permissions declared in `permissions` and `host_permissions` as optional. |
0 commit comments