- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:45:49 +0100
- To: Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: >> Chrome currently does not seem to do any of this particularly well, >> but when you click a notification from say the notification center >> there should be some "going to the relevant site" going on. E.g. via >> focusing a particular browsing context that spawned the notification. > > I'm not sure that's true - as I said, the specification says nothing about > this, and the page that displays the notification is free to focus itself > via an onclick handler if it likes. > > As an example, if you click on a gmail new-mail notification, instead of > focusing gmail (which might be in the middle of some other operation such as > composing an email, or you might be viewing a different message thread) we > open the associated email in a new window. So in this case, we actively do > *not* want to focus the source browsing context. > > So the chrome behavior is intentional. Fair enough. >> Trying to brain storm as to what should be done when you click a >> notification of a site that is no longer there. Navigating to a URL >> was one idea. Starting up an event worker as outlined (roughly) in >> http://annevankesteren.nl/2013/05/applifying might be a better idea. > > That's not a bad idea - as you know from my separate email with you, I'm > less enamored with using Workers for these kinds of on-demand/background > footprint tasks, because they are limited in so many ways (can't display a > visible browsing context, for example). I prefer having instead a page that > is loaded off-screen, albeit perhaps with a limited lifetime as you describe > in that page. So how would that work if open gmail.com twice, in two distinct browsing contexts? Long term we want those to be able to use distinct threads I think, but they should be able to share a single event page/worker. Not having the ability to focus (draw attention to) and open windows does seem like something we should solve. (The cross-origin loading case you mentioned should really be solved using WebSocket or CORS. I heard from at least one guy from your app team that they want to move to something like that long term and the <iframe> thing is mostly a intermediate hack.) >> Yeah, that's currently not described. You think we should leave that >> to developers? That might work, although that leaves the questions >> about the site being closed. > > Yeah, it does. Currently in Chrome we basically punt on this, with the > expectation that well-behaved pages close their notifications via an > document.onclose handler. I hadn't really considered the case of the app > developer wanting their notifications to hang around after the window closes > and still have some action undertaken when the user clicks on them. That seems like something we want to support, no? E.g. you get a push message, so you open the event page/worker, and that dispatches a notification, but then you want to kill the event page/worker so it doesn't continue to use system resources. Couple days later the user might click the notification and then you'd open the event page/worker again. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2013 15:46:17 UTC