- From: John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:07:21 -0700
- To: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Cc: Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AANLkTik_T0yF0MXgb-gnVI7UzngN-kMyxy2dQCJM-rOO@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2010, at 8:39 AM, John Gregg wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hey Drew, > > > > > I think this is too vague, as it's sounds like a user agent could *not* > ignore markup in the string, and still be compliant with the spec. I think > we need to be very explicit that the string *must* be treated as plain text. > So if I pass in "><b>foo</b>" as the body parameter to > createNotification(), the resulting notification must display the string > "><b>foo</b>", without stripping or converting any of the substrings that > might look like HTML entities. > > > > > > > Yup. we should tighten up the language. i think we are on the same page > here. > > > > It's actually more complicated given the various platform behavior. > While Growl doesn't interpret markup, NotifyOSD on linux does allow some > markup in its notifications (< shows <, for example) [1, section 5]. So > it's not sufficient to just pass the string directly, it has to be escaped > in order to present the exact text provided. > > > > So perhaps, "the user agent must display the string as plain text, > without interpreting markup; if using a notification platform which does > interpret markup, the user agent should modify the string so that any markup > is shown rather than interpreted." > > > > [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NotificationDevelopmentGuidelines > > > From an implementation pov, this text sorta scares me. Figuring out which > notification platform interpret which character sequences sounds hard. And > these system are not static and must be reevaluated constantly. > > I think it might make it a bunch easier to simply say that UA should strip > out any escape sequences or html tags. > > What do you think? I'm concerned that it would make it impossible to display a certain category of strings in notifications. Suppose we're both web devs, I'm chatting with you and want to share with you a snippet of code; will the chat notification be blank? I agree with the problem of depending on the providers, but if we do want to be able to specify dependable output for input (my interpretation of this discussion), I think we have to make some sort of effort there. -John -John
Received on Friday, 25 June 2010 16:07:56 UTC