W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2014

Re: [whatwg] Notifications and service workers

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 16:13:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnb78iCuMCkz4bi_T7gp8nacEA=ju31zSf1TzuaU2oKdURRDQ@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:24 UTC