- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:20:48 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Orlow" <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Cc: Olli@pettay.fi, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, johnnyg@google.com
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:52:18 +0100, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:55:32 +0100, Olli Pettay >> <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi> >> wrote: >>> NotificationCenter is a bit strange. Why do we need >>> a separate interface for this? >>> I'd rather added createNotification to window object, >>> or to .screen. >> >> Shouldn't it be on navigator? We use navigator for other device-related >> APIs as well, e.g. onLine and registerProtocolHandler(). > > It seems as though there are currently a lot of device related APIs in > the pipeline (especially in the DAP WG). Are you suggesting that > navigator be a dumping ground for all of them? I have argued that, yes. (Though within bounds, e.g. the <device> proposal makes sense and the REST approach for certain APIs does too.) > Like I said in a response to Olli's original email, there's precedent for > creating an object that hangs off DOMWindow. Is there any reason you're > against this? Yes, polluting the global object further. Also, there is precedent for hanging off APIs on navigator too, in particular APIs that have something to do with the platform. > Also note that checking to see whether window.notifiactions exists seems > like a very nice way for consumers of the API to check whether it's > available. if(navigator.createNotification) does not seem much worse. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2010 20:21:28 UTC