Re: Notifications meetup outcome

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Aharon (Vladimir) Lanin
<aharon@google.com>wrote:

> >  We discussed directionality and the outcome was to "ltr", "rtl", and
> "auto", defaulting to "auto", behaving the same as in HTML, but no
> inheritance
>
> "When necessary, authors can enforce a particular direction for a given
>  paragraph by starting it with the Unicode U+200E LEFT-TO-RIGHT MARK or
> U+200F RIGHT-TO-LEFT MARK characters."
>

As a data point, this is exactly what gmail does for all of its email and
chat notifications currently - it analyses the text being displayed, and
inserts RLE/LRE formatting chars if needed. This is important since the
title and body may have differing directions depending on the content of
the email, and their directions may not match the directionality of the
parent document. It's possible that this might no longer be required if we
aren't inheriting directionality from the parent document as you suggest,
assuming we can properly rely on the browser to determine this for us
(treating the title and body as separate paragraphs that may need different
directionality).


>
> I strongly believe that this should also be the way that a notification's
> body and title are treated when a notification has the auto dir value (and
> that it should be the default dir value for a notification). I think that
> the notifications spec should use something like the verbiage above or
> perhaps a shorter synopsis something like this:
>
> "If the notification's dir attribute is auto, its title and body must be
> split into paragraphs and the directionality of each paragraph determined
> from its content independently of the others as specified by the Unicode
> bidirectional algorithm's rule P1, P2, and P3."
>
> Aharon
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>wrote:
>
>> Here a brief summary of what we discussed at Apple today. Let me know if
>> there are any questions. If you have comments please email them to the
>> list. As I indicated earlier outcome of the meeting is subject to
>> discussion.
>>
>> We discussed the remaining two issues with the specification:
>>
>> * Given that the DAP WG is no longer working on the permissions
>> specification we will go with the proposal from Apple to expose the
>> permission model as static members of the Notification object.
>>
>> * We discussed directionality and the outcome was to "ltr", "rtl", and
>> "auto", defaulting to "auto", behaving the same as in HTML, but no
>> inheritance as 1) it's unclear whether the root element exposes the right
>> directionality to begin with and 2) workers don't have a directionality.
>> Aharon, Kenny, if you concerns about this approach please let the list know.
>>
>> We also discussed display handling and whether the length of displaying
>> was up to the notification platform or the application. Currently it is up
>> to the application, but the specification allows for the notification
>> platform to set a hard timeout. Aside from timeout configuration, the
>> ability for progress bars and displaying actionable buttons in
>> notifications came up as well. Proposals for these will be considered for a
>> potential future version of Web Notifications. We will work with the W3C to
>> recharter as appropriate.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anne van Kesteren
>> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>>
>
>