Re: static permission functions on Notification (was Feedback from Safari on Web Notifications)

I've been trying to scan through other specs, and don't see others who are using the feature permission spec. And as far as I know there are no implementers of that spec. I don't think we should block ourselves on the completion and adoption of it to support notifications.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this?


On Mar 12, 2012, at 1:24 AM, Jon Lee <> wrote:

> Third thread, to add permission functions as static functions on Notification. Reposting responses:
> On Mar 7, 2012, at 10:15 AM, John Gregg <> wrote:
>> I think the biggest question that the group needs to address here is whether the Notifications spec should continue depending on the Feature Permissions for its permissions behavior (and perhaps forward these proposals there to be applied in the general sense), or should we remove that dependency and return to writing our own permissions behavior scoped to notifications?
> I believe we should not at this time depend on that spec for permissions behavior. From a general perspective, it opens the door for bad user experience, and I think this kind of API should only be available when necessary. Using the feature permissions spec makes it too easy to add new features that don't need it, and which could be handled through better API design, like in geolocation. UAs could either pummel the user with permission requests, or force the user to allow all features at once.
> It seems rare to me, also, that a feature needs to obtain permission before trying to use it the first time. Because notifications are a visual medium, it is undesirable for a website to be forced to show a test notification to see if it has permission, or to request it.
> Jon

Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 00:31:19 UTC