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

Re: Notifications

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:33:24 -0800
Message-ID: <bbeaa26f1002231233x56cffd8esceb607030d4f48db@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com>, Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@myrealbox.com>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Am 23. Februar 2010 12:11 schrieb Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>:

> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:20:13 +0100, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <
> ifette@google.com> wrote:
>
>> CreateInteractiveNotification(in DOMString text-fallback, [Optional] in
>> DOMString MimeType1, [Optional] in DOMString NotificationFormat1,
>> [Optional]
>> in DOMString MimeType2, [Optional] NotificationFormat2, ...)
>>
>> forgive my broken IDL, I'm sure there's a better way to express it, but
>> you get the idea.
>>
>
> I don't see why it cannot be just a URL. If the user agent "supports" the
> type it will render it and it will fail otherwise. There's no need for
> complex multi-level fallback here in my opinion, nobody is going to bother
> with that anyway.
>
>
<video> has multi-level fallback, so there is precedent for better or worse.
That said, specifying a (set of) URL(s) may be fine, but I think it would
still be nice for a UA to have fallback options. Is everyone going to use
it? Probably not, but I think people that actually care would. E.g. if I
have a property that I expect people on mobile devices to go to, I will make
sure that it works on mobile devices, exactly as we do with properties today
where we reasonably expect mobile users.

-Ian


>
>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 20:33:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:37 GMT