Collaboration invite links — permissions, expiry, identity and a zero-account workflow #630

Why this exists

Issue #349 tracks collaboration invite links with expiry and permissions. This Discussion explores the user-facing contract around invite links while #349 remains authoritative for implementation and acceptance.

Current state

WorldScript Studio has a real-time collaboration foundation, but the invite-link UX, durable permissions model, identity choices, revocation, and recovery semantics remain to be defined. The goal is a useful collaboration flow without assuming that every participant already has an account.

Product decision space

Please consider expiry, read/comment/edit roles, explicit revocation, guest identity or pseudonymity, password and key handling, link leakage, and recovery after a link is copied. A zero-account workflow should remain viable only if it can preserve clear ownership and safe authorization semantics without quietly inventing a central ACL service.

Role perspectives

Role-perspective note: The viewpoints below are maintainer-curated, AI-assisted design lenses. They are not separate community members, votes, or evidence of consensus.

• 🤝 Co-author: joining should be understandable, low-friction, and safe during active writing.
• ✍️ Project owner: permissions, revocation, expiry, and visibility must be predictable.
• 🔐 Privacy/security: links, guest identities, keys, and copied URLs must not create silent over-sharing.
• 🌐 Zero-account/PWA: offline-first and account-free collaboration should remain technically credible.
• 🧭 Product/operational complexity: the first useful contract should not require an unbounded identity or ACL platform.

Questions for the community

• Which roles are essential: read, comment, edit, or a smaller MVP?
• What expiry defaults and revocation controls would be trustworthy?
• How should guest names, pseudonyms, and handoffs work?
• What should happen when an invite link leaks or a key/password is lost?
• Which parts must work without accounts or a central service?

Relationship to implementation

Use this Discussion for product and UX exploration. #349 remains the implementation and acceptance tracker; this Discussion does not change its priority, roadmap admission, acceptance criteria, or execution sequencing.