Re: Notifications

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:36:26 +0100, John Gregg <> wrote:
> I'm familiar with that version of the proposal (in fact my WHATWG  
> proposal from March '09 had the same language: untrusted notifications  
> displayed
> in-browser), but considering it more I think it is too limiting.  
> Considering widgets, mobile browsers, browser extensions, workers  
> (already in the spec), etc., which all might want to use this API, it's  
> potentially many different forms of UI for untrusted  
> notifications---where do they go, how is it clear where they came from?   
> Compare that to a single place outside the browser, with a clear source  
> displayed, once trust is established.  I prefer the
> latter.

You probably need different permission UI regardless. E.g. on mobile  
browsers you might not show the notification in-tab but would only  
something if the user did something in response to a dialog.

> In the case the first notification from an application is an important  
> one,
> that app should be able to request permission for out-of-tab  
> notifications beforehand;

Aren't notifications by nature somewhat non-important? In any event, we  
could expose to the application whether or not it was displayed and if it  
was not the application could pick an alternative route to convey the  

> for that reason I'm convinced requestPermission() is desirable.
> However beyond that, perhaps the spec should be flexible; if a UA wants  
> to treat PERMISSION_UNKNOWN as "show in-tab" rather than "throw  
> exception", the spec could allow it -- but I don't think it should  
> require it.  Would that be acceptable?

I'm not convinced we need a permission API and would therefore rather  
leave it out to see if we can do without. We do not have an API like this  
anymore else.

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Friday, 5 February 2010 14:53:05 UTC