- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:27:11 -0700
- To: Erik Corry <erikcorry@google.com>
- Cc: Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Shijun Sun <shijuns@microsoft.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Erik Corry <erikcorry@google.com> wrote: > * Push doesn't actually need SW's ability to intercept network > communications on behalf of a web page. > * You can imagine a push-handling SW that does all sorts of > complicated processing of notifications, downloading things to a local > database, but does not cache/intercept a web page. > * This ties into the discussion of whether it should be possible to > register a SW without giving it a network-intercept namespace As was discussed over in <https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/issues/445#issuecomment-60304515> earlier today, you need a scope for all uses of SW, because you need to *request permission* on a *page*, not within a SW (so the user has appropriate context on whether to grant the permission or not), and the scope maps the page to the SW that the registration is for. (The permission grant is actually per-origin, not per-scope/SW, but the registration itself is per-scope/SW, and it has to be done from within a page context because there *might* be a permission grant needed.) ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2014 21:27:57 UTC