- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 16:13:49 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Andrew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com>
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