Re: [w3c/ServiceWorker] Making functional events simpler (#1199)

jungkees commented on this pull request.



>  
-    To request a <a>functional event</a> dispatch to a [=/service worker=], specifications *may* invoke <a>Handle Functional Event</a> algorithm with its [=/service worker registration=] <var ignore>registration</var> and the algorithm |callbackSteps| as the arguments.
-
-    Specifications *may* define an algorithm |callbackSteps| where the corresponding <a>functional event</a> can be created and fired with specification specific objects. The algorithm is passed <var ignore>globalObject</var> (a {{ServiceWorkerGlobalScope}} object) at which it *may* fire its <a>functional events</a>. This algorithm is called on a <a>task</a> <a lt="queue a task">queued</a> by <a>Handle Functional Event</a> algorithm.
-
-    Note: See an <a href="https://notifications.spec.whatwg.org/#activating-a-notification">example</a> hook defined in <a biblio data-biblio-type="informative" lt="notifications">Notifications API</a>.
+    To request a [=functional event=] dispatch to the [=service worker registration/active worker=] of a [=/service worker registration=], specifications *may* invoke [=Fire Functional Event=].

This isn't an issue this PR brought. Would it be better to change the conformance requirement language to *should* or even *must*? I think there's a chance that some prospective specs might want to define their own steps intentionally. So, *should* seems to be a good requirement for this?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/pull/1199#pullrequestreview-130197354