W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-notification@w3.org > October 2010

Re: CfC: FPWD of Web Notification drafts

From: Doug Turner <dougt@dougt.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:56:47 -0700
Cc: "Web Notification WG" <public-web-notification@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A64B7BEA-0615-49EF-81FF-0EEC258D7FBF@dougt.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
I just skimmed the api. Here are my comments.  I'd like them discussed and have these issues tracked and resolved before moving to FPWD.

On Oct 15, 2010, at 5:20 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish these four drafts as First Public Working Draft[1]:
> 
>  Web Notification Overview
>  http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebNotifications/publish


some of the use cases:

 A calendar application alerts the user for an upcoming meeting, and allows the user to easily specify a "snooze" delay of several possible time periods.
 An application with multiple simultaneous execution contexts (like a multi-tab email application) wants to show notifications without creating duplicate notifications.

Are not possible today with system notifications, but they can be implemented using a callback.

I propose that we punt on these.


>  Feature Permissions
>  http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebNotifications/publish/FeaturePermissions.html

Web APIs should not throw.

We should not use sync APIs EVER. permissionLevel should take a callback.  The implementation of this API probably will hit a database/datastore and we shouldn't block waiting for stuff like this.

privilegedFeatures should not be exposed.  Instead, we should add a new permission value: const long  UNKNOWN.


>  Web Notifications
>  http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebNotifications/publish/Notifications.html

I think we should, as I stated before, make sure that the Web Notification spec is something that we'd implement.  


>  Web URL Notifications
>  http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebNotifications/publish/WebNotifications.html

I think this is basically out of the scope of our charter as I read it and it is something I think Mozilla will *not* implement.


Regards,
Doug
Received on Saturday, 16 October 2010 04:57:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 December 2012 14:48:27 GMT