- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 11:26:58 -0700
- To: Doug Turner <dougt@dougt.org>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Web Notification WG <public-web-notification@w3.org>
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Doug Turner <dougt@dougt.org> wrote:
>> Per the current specification it would be at window.Notification, to be exact.
>
> Right. I am not an advocate of putting this on window. This is unlike alert(), confirm(), prompt() which are tied to a dom window. This api is tied more to a user agent itself, and for that, we use navigator.*.
I think the point Anne is trying to make is that as long as we return
an object of a sort, that object is going to have an interface. And
since it uses an interface, in this case Notification, we will be
exposing a so called interface-object in the global scope. We do this
for almost all interfaces, for example you can do
window.Node
window.Element
window.XMLHttpRequest
window.MouseEvent
window.HTMLInputElement
These interface objects are mainly useful for two things, it allows
you to extend objects by doing:
window.Node.prototype.removeFromParent = function() {
this.parentNode.removeChild(this);
}
and by testing that an object is of a particular type
if (someElement instanceof HTMLInputElement) {
..do stuff..
}
Anyhow, since with this proposed interface we would be using a new
Notification interface, and thus add its interface-object to the
global scope, we already have added window.Notification. And so if we
allow the syntax
x = new Notification;
we don't actually add any *additional* risk of collisions.
/ Jonas
Received on Sunday, 17 October 2010 18:27:47 UTC