Saw a comment about Firefox support which I think has been since delated. I did have this comment to cover that:

access-storage permission supported in Firefox from 117 (not in release notes but narrowed it down by testing)

Edit: since was made aware of the link: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1805860

but here's some more evidence:

Works in 117:

Doesn't work in 116:

FYI @chrisdavidmills as hear that you might also be working on this.

Note that the name of the permission is storage-access. :)

Yes, Firefox has added permission API support in 117, see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1805860

Well that'll explain why I couldn't find it :-) Updated first comment with a link.

FYI @chrisdavidmills as hear that you might also be working on this.

@tunetheweb This is superb; I was actually about to do this stuff, but you beat me to it ;-)

I am currently working on a update to the docs that explains all this stuff, and also includes content on RWS. Not sure if this is something you want to do in this PR, but I was intending to add a specific sub-data point for RWS inside requestStorageAccess. Rationale being that RWS is basically a subfeature of SAA, but there is not really a better place to put it, and I want to provide RWS-specific data on the RWS page.

This would include: supported from Chrome 113, but it was called FPS up until Chrome 117.

Ha ha! Currently doing some docs on developer.chrome.com on Chrome's implementation and asking myself the same question as to whether RWS and requestStorageAccessFor belongs in a Storage Access API post or not!

Let's land this BCD change, as think it's good to go, and then open a separate one for any extra changes you want for that as might be more discussion on whether that belongs or not.

Would you be down to split this into three separate PRs, one for each browser engine? I think that Chrome and Firefox are good to go, but Safari isn't quite ready, and it would be great to get the other two engine's changes landed right away!

Do we need three or can I just remove the Safari changes from here and then merge this?

I'd say that so long as the Safari changes are separated, two PRs is sufficient!

Reverted the Safari changes so think this is good to merge.

I'm happy to leave Safari as is. It was a minor note anyway and think @chrisdavidmills is planning on updating the doc page on it anyway (though that won't feed through to any consumers like caniuse like the note suggestion would have).

Thank you -- actually, could we revert the Firefox changes as well? Using the collector, I just confirmed that Firefox 65 (well, technically, Firefox 72 or earlier) is accurate.

Thank you -- actually, could we revert the Firefox changes as well? Using the collector, I just confirmed that Firefox 65 (well, technically, Firefox 72 or earlier) is accurate.

Thats fair for the hasStorageAccess() and requestSttorageAccess() methods since the earlier version was supported since then so I’ve reverted that.

However, I’ve left the Firefox Permisson Policy change in from 117 as that was changed from then as per evidence above and previously it said it wasn’t supported at all so that does need updating.

Thanks for the thorough review and helping catch a lot of things @queengooborg !