2010/2/23 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com> > Am 23. Februar 2010 12:11 schrieb Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>: > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:20:13 +0100, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) < >> ifette@google.com> wrote: >> >>> CreateInteractiveNotification(in DOMString text-fallback, [Optional] in >>> DOMString MimeType1, [Optional] in DOMString NotificationFormat1, >>> [Optional] >>> in DOMString MimeType2, [Optional] NotificationFormat2, ...) >>> >>> forgive my broken IDL, I'm sure there's a better way to express it, but >>> you get the idea. >>> >> >> I don't see why it cannot be just a URL. If the user agent "supports" the >> type it will render it and it will fail otherwise. There's no need for >> complex multi-level fallback here in my opinion, nobody is going to bother >> with that anyway. >> >> > <video> has multi-level fallback, so there is precedent for better or > worse. That said, specifying a (set of) URL(s) may be fine, but I think it > would still be nice for a UA to have fallback options. Is everyone going to > use it? Probably not, but I think people that actually care would. E.g. if I > have a property that I expect people on mobile devices to go to, I will make > sure that it works on mobile devices, exactly as we do with properties today > where we reasonably expect mobile users. > I suspect that text fallback + a single URL would be sufficient. As a fallback/escape hatch, servers can sniff UA headers and serve up a different data type if a non-HTML-supporting device starts supporting this API. > > -Ian > > >> >> >> -- >> Anne van Kesteren >> http://annevankesteren.nl/ >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 21:13:14 UTC