- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 18:29:49 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com>
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > While JS running in the page can't tell a difference, the > user certainly can so it can still be perceived as a breaking change. Yeah, we'll need to see if new Notification() can be changed enough or whether we need three types of notifications... >> Yeah, it seems like we need to keep this. Through opt-in works. > > It seems like if we keep this event it should at the very least be > possible to tell "closed because of user action" from "closed because > of timeout or other platform policy". And maybe also "closed because > of application calling .close()". Otherwise it doesn't seem like it > meets Andrew's use case or the use case above. I added the service worker API now, but have not addressed this particular point yet. Does anyone have a good idea of what should be done here? > Note that I don't actually think that we need to even return a > Notification instance when a persistent notification is created. Fair, I return undefined now. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 16:30:15 UTC