On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > I don't know of a use-case for that. And given that I think we should > define that non-persistent notifications go away after a timeout, I > think this is the common scenario. > > The reason I think we should use timeouts is that this matches all > OS-native non-persistent notifications that I know of, and also seems > like a better UX. I started to remove the close event and then I noticed we also use it when a notification gets replaced by a newer one. Do we care about that? -- https://annevankesteren.nl/Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 14:14:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:24 UTC