W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-notification@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Feedback from Safari on Web Notifications

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 23:53:51 +0100 (CET)
To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
cc: John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-web-notification@w3.org, Jon Lee <jonlee@apple.com>, "Ted O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1203072351510.15227@sirius>

On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, Ojan Vafai wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:15 AM, John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com> wrote:
>       On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>             4. Improve show() behavior.
> We think show() can only be used once per notification. Subsequent invocations should call onerror().
> Agreed that show() is only meant to be used once.  Ian Hickson has made the related suggestion that show() should not exist as a method, but rather that show() be implicit in the constructor.
>  I don't prefer that because it requires that all possible optional parameters of the notification be provided in the constructor, which makes the interface harder to use.  I prefer using
> onerror to deal with multiple attempts to show, but this should be resolved by the WG.
> I second Ian's suggestion . This is the direction we're taking many other things in the platform and it's been a clear improvement. For example, we're removing all the init*Event methods for custom
> events and just using the constructors. The way we've been dealing with extra arguments is by passing in a dictionary for the optional arguments. So the API would be:

Yes, I think the constructor approach is nicer and more in line 
with contemporary platform features.
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 22:54:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:13 UTC