W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Notifications

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:20:48 +0100
To: "Jeremy Orlow" <jorlow@chromium.org>
Cc: Olli@pettay.fi, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, johnnyg@google.com
Message-ID: <op.u7kisyky64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:52:18 +0100, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>  
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>  
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:55:32 +0100, Olli Pettay  
>> <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
>> wrote:
>>> NotificationCenter is a bit strange. Why do we need
>>> a separate interface for this?
>>> I'd rather added createNotification to window object,
>>> or to .screen.
>>
>> Shouldn't it be on navigator? We use navigator for other device-related
>> APIs as well, e.g. onLine and registerProtocolHandler().
>
> It seems as though there are currently a lot of device related APIs in  
> the pipeline (especially in the DAP WG).  Are you suggesting that  
> navigator be a dumping ground for all of them?

I have argued that, yes. (Though within bounds, e.g. the <device> proposal  
makes sense and the REST approach for certain APIs does too.)


> Like I said in a response to Olli's original email, there's precedent for
> creating an object that hangs off DOMWindow.  Is there any reason you're
> against this?

Yes, polluting the global object further. Also, there is precedent for  
hanging off APIs on navigator too, in particular APIs that have something  
to do with the platform.


> Also note that checking to see whether window.notifiactions exists seems
> like a very nice way for consumers of the API to check whether it's
> available.

if(navigator.createNotification) does not seem much worse.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2010 20:21:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:36 GMT