W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Web Notifications I18N Review: [I18N-ISSUE-161, I18N-ISSUE-162]

From: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: Addison Phillips <addison@lab126.com>
Cc: www-international@w3.org, public-web-notification@w3.org, "Olli.Pettay" <opettay@mozilla.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>
Message-ID: <1571996308.293456.1341040918754.JavaMail.root@mozilla.com>

> Still, it sounds as if Web Notifications can assume that the language has already been "negotiated". Can there be "anonymous Web Notifications"? That would be the use case for having multiple language title/body items.

No.  Our implementation will know exactly who requested the notification.

> Doug seems to be saying
> direction is already missing sometimes. Language is even more obscure (and
> often wrong on the web, too).
> 

We want to encourage people to do the right things, or at least make it possible. Direction and/or language metadata are often missing or unavailable, in which case the Notification won't be able to include them. But our goal is to ensure that it is *possible* to include the necessary information and get the correct results. 

I am not in favor of encouraging people to do things in an API that can't be implemented uniformly.  On most systems (cocoa, windows, linux, android) we just can implement them properly. 

> We are not asking that Web Notifications make direction or language *obligatory*, only that they are available.

Addison, do you know why these existing system notification systems have been quite successful without these properties available?  Have you heard of any demand for such attributes?



I prefer to just inherent the language/direction from the document that makes the notification request.  This keeps the API neat and simple.  If it becomes clear that this isn't enough and/or more systems start supporting i18n directly in their notification API, we should reconsider.

Doug
Received on Saturday, 30 June 2012 07:22:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 30 June 2012 07:22:26 GMT