Re: [push-api] Add optional userVisibleOnly parameter to register & hasPermission (#87)

I'm deeply concerned by the overall tone of this thread.

It is inappropriate to be specing UI details in non-layout APIs, although the assumption in much of the discussion is that agreement about UI is either helpful or desirable. It is not.

UAs must be able to retain autonomy about how/when to show UI -- particularly security UI. Arguments against API because of optional (and likely-to-change) UI treatments are non-arguments.

Mozilla, for instance, has frequently requested descriptive strings in APIs even though Chrome will not use them. These are fine things to add to APIs assuming no demands are made on eventual UI (which, given form-factor changes alone, cannot hold). Reciprocity must be provided.

`hasPermission()` and extensions to it to deal with states mozilla will not implement are simply no-ops. They should be added post-haste, not least of all because the assumption of dependent (unfinished APIs) is a spec-design anti-pattern.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/push-api/pull/87#issuecomment-77982145