- From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:11:37 +0100
- To: John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com>
- Cc: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AANLkTikbdfHRnAOhhfT85GnQsGj8Jl8eqEpPK2juTdLP@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:01 PM, John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:44 PM, John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>> I'm happy with this course of action, but first I wanted to ask why >>>>> not the "gracefully degrade" suggestion from the "Notifications" thread >>>>> started on the 3rd of Feb. As far as I can tell, it was never seriously >>>>> considered, but several of us brought it up. And I feel like it'd be a much >>>>> better way forward than having a different interface for html based >>>>> notifications and text notifications. >>>>> >>>>> (The basic idea was to accept either text or html and then if it's the >>>>> latter and the notification scheme doesn't support it, we'd use some simple, >>>>> specced heuristics to extract data to be used. In the thread, there were >>>>> some specific ideas about how the transformations could work. But from a >>>>> quick skim, I couldn't find any reasons why it was a bad idea.) >>>>> >>>>> J >>>>> >>>> >>>> There were actually several ways considered to combine the interfaces: >>>> >>>> - We can a have a method createNotification(text, body, icon, URL) which >>>> uses the URL parameter if supported and text/body/icon parameters to be used >>>> as the backup if HTML content is not supported (I call this the "alt text" >>>> option). >>>> - We can allow the API to take a URL, load that resource and read some >>>> meta information from it, such as the <title> tag. (the "title tag" >>>> option). >>>> >>> >>> A third option would be to take raw HTML rather than a URL and compute >>> the text version if necessary. >>> >> >> Whenever the spec allows a URL for HTML notifications, I intend that data >> url is an option for developers who want to specify the HTML as a string. >> (Chrome supports this already, FYI.) >> > > Good point. Never mind on this "third option". > > >> Or did you mean to suggest that only local HTML would be allowed in the >> suggested API, not a remote URL? >> >> >>> >>> >>>> I prefer the "alt text" option between these two, because it is much >>>> simpler to implement for browsers that don't want to support HTML >>>> notifications and would also be better performing, since it doesn't require >>>> the resource load. >>>> >>> >>> The difficulty in implementation is much less important than difficulty >>> in use is much less important than the difficulty in use. Although it seems >>> that at least one mainstream browser will only implement the text conversion >>> option and thus the "alt text" version probably won't be as neglected as alt >>> text in an image (at least initially) and this is something we expect mostly >>> "advanced" web developers will use, I still think it's a mistake to assume >>> web developers will properly support both. So I would support #2 or my #3 >>> much more than #1 which I would support more than Doug's original suggestion >>> (for that reason). >>> >> >> I see the developer-side complexity the opposite way. In #1 the backup >> plan is very explicit, in #2/3 for the developer to get good results on >> text-only platforms they have to understand our heuristics. We haven't >> specified them exactly, but I would speculate that using them would involve >> at least as much effort as specifying the backup plan explicitly. >> > > Well, getting things to look > er...meant to say "look good" > would possibly take more effort on a web developer's part, but having > _anything_ show up (for developers who only target browsers that support > HTML) would always work...even if poorly. With Doug's proposal and the "alt > text" proposal, if developers target a browser that only supports HTML, then > things will completely break in browsers that don't support it. Maybe > that's OK though? > > If the conversion algorithm is well specified, getting it to work in one > text only browser would mean it works in all of them. (If they all follow > the spec that is.) > I suppose that we could spec it such that if someone creates a HTML notification (in Doug's proposal) or doesn't specify alt text in the "alt text" proposal, we fall back to some algorithm/heuristics to do the conversion automatically. It'd be the most complicated implementation wise, but it'd be the best solution for the web developer. J
Received on Friday, 25 June 2010 16:12:28 UTC