Re: [w3ctag/spec-reviews] Notifications API (#94)

That's very brief indeed. Will there be a more detailed version? cc @slightlyoff

> constructor is in docs, showNotification method in background context.

Correct. The constructor relies on events on the object, the lifetime of which cannot be guaranteed in a Service Worker. (Consider that notifications are able to to outlive the user agent.)

> Event mode works in SW but not in documents?

What is "event mode"?

> Growing set of notification types?
> Large image formats?
> List of items?

Yes, providing high fidelity integration with operating systems is a goal, especially when multiple OSes are able to provide a feature.

Large images: https://github.com/whatwg/notifications/issues/79
List of items: https://github.com/whatwg/notifications/issues/21
Progress bars: https://github.com/whatwg/notifications/issues/17
Inline replies: https://github.com/whatwg/notifications/issues/68

> Icons and action buttons?

[Supported.](https://notifications.spec.whatwg.org/#dictdef-notificationaction)

> Multi res images/formats

https://github.com/whatwg/notifications/issues/28

> notifications for ringing - more aggressive, need perms?

I recall this being mentioned somewhere, but can't find it. This indeed isn't addressed by the current spec (it'd be an immediate/high-priority mode). Two thoughts:

  1. It's not uncommon for apps to focus their own window for such events, as opposed to showing a notification. This would definitely need a permission, but is likely out of scope for notifications.
  2. The Android-like "peek-on-top" notifications are an application of priority. However, their presentation is a heuristic and it's not clear what sort of cross-platform support we'd be dealing with.

> Line up Requireinteraction flag and background task API - overlap?

Unrelated I think? `requireInteraction` indicates that a toast should remain on-screen until the user interacts with it, in cases where that is significant (for example a calendar reminder).


---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/94#issuecomment-236630991