W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Thoughts on WebNotification

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:45:41 +0200
Cc: John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
Message-Id: <6BFEE8E9-A604-4509-B4B7-5223496AB830@berjon.com>
To: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
On Jun 24, 2010, at 21:00 , Doug Turner wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2010, at 11:48 AM, John Gregg wrote:
>> interface Permissions {
>> 
>> // permission values
>> const unsigned long PERMISSION_ALLOWED = 0;
>> const unsigned long PERMISSION_UNKNOWN = 1;
>> const unsigned long PERMISSION_DENIED  = 2;

Small nit, but can we have string constants instead ("allowed", "denied", "unknown")? They usually turn out to either be less typing or more readable depending on whether one uses "Permissions.PERMISSION_ALLOWED" or "1".

> so, checkPermission and requestPermission.  I am happy with that......

+1

> navigator.permissions.requestPermission("geolocation,desktop-notification",...).

I'd make it an array ["geolocation", "notifications"] but yeah.

>> The bigger question is, are other features interested?  Would the Geolocation spec consider using something like this for permissions?
> 
> cc'ing Andrei Popescu - the editor of the Geolocation spec.  Not sure how to formally answer your question.  However, if the permission api above was implemented, I think it naturally follows that "geolocation" would be one of the known strings.

DAP would be interested. To talk process a little bit: if we want to make this into a spec it needs a home. In case WebApps can't or won't take it (given how complicated rechartering it already is), DAP seem like a natural home for it. I'd have to ask the group of course but I'm in favour.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Friday, 25 June 2010 11:46:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:39 GMT