Re: Publishing Web Notification Drafts

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Doug Turner <dougt@dougt.org> wrote:
>
> > I do not think so?
> >
> > [GrowlApplicationBridge
> > notifyWithTitle:(NSString *)title
> > description:(NSString *)description
> > notificationName:(NSString *)notificationName
> > iconData:(NSData *)iconData
> > priority:(signed int)priority
> > isSticky:(BOOL)isSticky
> > clickContext:(id)clickContext]
> >
>

Sorry, I was misremembering. It was NotifyOSD that supports replaceId:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NotifyOSD#replacing


> Optional attributes must be added with a lot of care. We generally
> work really hard to make sure that APIs work the same across
> implementations. It is well known that few authors read the spec to
> see what can and cannot be depended on. It is very common that authors
> write something, test it in one, maybe two, browsers, and then release
> to the public.
>

Agreed. I think we should find a way to be clear in the spec about how these
attributes should be handled in the event that the underlying platform does
not support them (some attributes, like replaceId, seem like they can be
implemented in the user agent regardless of platform support).

I'd be concerned about excluding support for rtl locales merely because some
lowest-common-denominator system platform does not support it, but I'm
optimistic we can come up with some sort of solution that minimizes
incompatibility. Is there a problem with just stating that the rtl attribute
may not be supported (i.e. ignored) on all system platforms? In practice, if
a user installs a platform that does not support rtl notifications, then I'm
hard-pressed to expect they'll be confused when that platform doesn't
display rtl notifications.


>
> / Jonas
>