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: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:29:10 -0700
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Web Notification WG <public-web-notification@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0CBF8807-E6A7-406F-B32D-8583D77BC854@dougt.org>
To: Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>
Hey Drew,

> The latter case (replaceId) is definitely possible with system notifications on Linux (NotifyOSD)

true.  I suppose replaceId is important.

> and I don't see how similar functionality can be achieved with a callback.

You will get an onclose() and you could put a new notification up at that point... but that assumes that notifications are not sticky.

> Likewise, I'm not sure how you would implement the former with a callback (I assume you're saying you'd implement some kind of multi-step snooze interaction, where the user clicks on a notification, then an HTML popup is displayed by the app which the user can then decide whether to dismiss or snooze the notification)?

Sure.. that sounds like what you do.

> Once again, I think it's going to be difficult to make progress until we come to some consensus around whether this API should be limited to "things you can implement in Growl". Instead of having this discussion, we're instead having proxy arguments about the validity of use cases (bi-di, replaceId, HTML support) which I suspect would never come into question if they had native Growl support.


I want the first rev of this spec to be about the minimal support that common native systems already have.  Further revisions can include additional things.

> 
>  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.
> 
> I can't state categorically whether URL notifications are in or out of the scope of our charter, but I will note that NotifyOSD supports a subset of HTML:
> 
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NotifyOSD#sanitizing
> 
> Can you clarify why you believe that this is out of the scope of the charter?

Oh, that is something totally different, it think.  NotifyOSD allows you to pass html as the description and have it be rendered.  The WebNotification as part of this spec allows you to specify remote content and have that be rendered.

Regards,
Doug
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 00:29:47 GMT

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