W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2013

Re: [whatwg] The behaviour of Notification.requestPermission() in Workers

From: Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:46:50 +0200
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Message-ID: <AAF4636FFE244271967C841FE4627F07@gmail.com>
Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Nikhil Marathe <nsm.nikhil@gmail.com>
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Nikhil Marathe <nsm.nikhil@gmail.com (mailto:nsm.nikhil@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > The easiest solution for implementors and authors is to make the
> > requestPermission() call in a HTML page before spawning a worker or
> > registering a service worker. Inside the Worker scope we then have two
> > options:
> > 1) requestPermission() is not defined.
> > 2) requestPermission() does not ask the user, but uses the permission
> > associated with that origin, or denied.
> > 
> > I believe option 2 is better in terms of having a complete API.
> > 
> > Feedback is appreciated about what the right approach should be.
> 
> Given that Notificaiton.permission exists, I'm not sure what the
> additional value of Notification.requestPermission() in a worker
> context would be.

Portability of code between worker and non worker? 

--tobie
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 11:45:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:12 UTC