W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-notification@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Next steps for Web Notifications?

From: Navarr Barnier <navarr@gtaero.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:42:40 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=ShPtUhhn1kUqEkh6QbB2iDS_Ntw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Web Notification WG <public-web-notification@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:22:15 +0200, Navarr Barnier <navarr@gtaero.net>
> wrote:
>
>> My thought is, if its possible we should push it forward.  One thing that
>> no longer seems to be addressed in the spec, however, is *web
>> notifications*.
>>  Are we dropping them completely?  They are only referred to in the
>> definition list of the specification now.
>>
>
> Do you mean URL-based notifications? Because "web notifications" we now use
> as a term for notifications usable by the web platform.
>
>
>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>

The spec defines a "web notification" as a notification with consisting of
web platform content such as HTML and SVG, where as our current "Web
Notification" spec defines a "Simple Notification."

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:21 PM, John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
>  wrote:
>
>> Apart from the "may ignore markup" issue not a single email was sent to
>> this list while I was away. Should we fix that and go to Last Call or take
>> it as a cue that maybe it is too early to standardize these APIs given the
>> lack of comments? I'm personally leaning towards the former. If it turns out
>> it does not get adopted by implementors in the end we can always drop it
>> then and it has been implemented already in some implementations.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
> I would support going to Last Call on the spec; perhaps that will encourage
> comments if there are any lingering.
>
> Regarding Web Notifications, I think the plan is still to maintain a
> separate track for that spec; having it mentioned in the definitions of the
> Notifications spec makes sense to me for context.  If the group is still
> interested in pursuing it, we could separately try to resolve the various
> points of contention and get that ready for a first public working draft.
>
> -John
>

I support this.  I think URL Notifications are important for more complex
data from web-based applications and platforms.  I think I've emailed the
list before with a couple use-cases that would make sense for URL
Notifications.
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 20:43:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 December 2012 14:48:28 GMT