- From: Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:03:29 -0800
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com>, Olli@pettay.fi, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <f965ae411002101503t5cddb56bibbf5dc6aadaecc04@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com> wrote: > >> One of the suggestions made previously on this thread was to coalesce >> createNotification() and createHTMLNotification() into a single API with an >> optional HTML parameter - this would allow UAs on systems with >> Growl/NotifyOSD to ignore the HTML parameter passed in, and only display the >> text + icon information through the appropriate system framework. This also >> addresses concerns expressed on WHATWG that platforms that don't support >> createHTMLNotification() would break the web because web applications would >> fail to check for the existence of HTML support before calling these APIs - >> UAs would always have a useful fallback. >> > > The problem with that is that authors who test with a system that supports > HTML notifications could easily provide the wrong non-HTML message, or no > message at all, and not notice. It also forces authors to say things twice. > > Analogously, developers can (and do!) create pages that rely on javascript or images being enabled, which break if a UA does not support them. I would not use this as an argument against UAs supporting Javascript or images. You make the further point that application authors may intentionally *only* want to display HTML notifications, and would rather display nothing if HTML is not available (they pass in no message at all) - I'm not sure this is true, but if it is I'd say that's an argument in favor of supporting HTML in this API, not against it. > I think a better way to go would be to support a restricted subset of HTML, > and then consider how the UA should extract text for a plaintext-only > notification framework (possibly opting to fall back to non-native > notifications if the text extraction doesn't work). For example, you could > allow only <b> and <img> elements, and for text-only notifications you would > strip <b> and use the alt text for <img>, and if the author didn't provide > alt text for <img> then and only then you would fall back to non-native > notifications. > > It seems unusual to me that in a spec directed at HTML-based UAs, we would define some sort of domain-specific markup language rather than simply supporting HTML. Browsers know how to render HTML and can extract text appropriately if for some reason they need to down-render (for example, see the textContent and innerText element properties). Why would we define a separate markup language to allow defining marked up text that can be rendered differently depending on the display capabilities - isn't that what HTML is for? Is there an advantage to defining a subset? > > Rob > -- > "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; > the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are > healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his > own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah > 53:5-6] >
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2010 23:03:59 UTC