Re: Web Notifications to CR: 48-hour Call for Consensus (CR)

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 11:49 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Jon Lee <jonlee@apple.com> wrote:
>> Hearing no objections from participants in the WG, the Call for Consensus carried, so I'm recording a WG decision to request transition of the Web Notifications spec to CR.
> 
> You just got substantive feedback from representatives of Mozilla and
> Google that your draft is incompatible with what they are working on.
> Both organizations are part of your WG as far as I can tell.

At this point, this spec descriptively documents what’s already been implemented and shipped in browsers. That in no way obstructs progress on the WHATWG’s work, which appears to focus on persistent, service worker based notifications. This WG’s spec, in accordance with the charter, only covers notifications from a locally running web app. The two specs have different use cases, so there’s no reason for them to be in direct conflict. In fact, there are native platforms that have APIs for both local and push notifications, including OS X and iOS. So the specs are not incompatible, and there’s no obvious reason we can’t do both. “Someone else is doing something different but somewhat related” is not a valid argument to stop our work.

There were no objections by the members of the working group. To be formal about it, we have unanimity, which is stronger than consensus, and I have a hard time seeing what else to do other than respect the group’s unanimity here and declare consensus.

>>> On Feb 19, 2015, at 2:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Given https://github.com/whatwg/notifications/issues/26 and the
>>> discussion on the WHATWG list to remove several events (which resulted
>>> in changes to the WHATWG document) it's not clear that this document
>>> still has wide support from the community.
>> 
>> The desire to add notifications to service workers is reasonable, and worth considering. That shouldn’t stop us from finishing up the current spec, which addresses common scenarios like the mail example Ted cited.
> 
> You're only responding to part of my comment.

We already have three shipping implementations of this spec. The working group needs IPR coverage, which is in the interest of all implementors.

Does any member of the working group disagree that I should declare consensus at this point?

Jon

Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2015 19:46:08 UTC