On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Fred Andrews freda...@live.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
The use I have in mind is a work-in-progress, see:
http://www.w3.org/community/pua/wiki/Draft#Examples
However the HTML standard already permits a UA to disable JS, and there is
the iframe sandbox, or CSP, or
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Fred Andrews freda...@live.com wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for the feedback. The PUA 'shared context' will likely need to
be a
distinct web worker variant to cater for any required restrictions and
also to
ensure it does not entangle its specific
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
alonn alonis...@gmail.com schrieb am Fri, 3 May 2013 18:50:36 +0300:
1. Having a way to check for the current permission without
initiating a new Notification object first. something like webkit has
Sorry, missed this the first time through:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
There is some interest in exposing Notification objects in a worker so
creating one does not require a postMessage() roundtrip.
This seems problematic for shared workers as
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
This seems problematic for shared workers as it is not clear which
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
Chrome currently does not seem to do any of this particularly well
So, I'm not entirely sure how many lessons taken from the FirefoxOS
implementation are applicable to the API for web pages in general, but I
agree that what do we do if the user clicks on a notification after the
parent page has been closed is a bit of an unsolved/unsolveable problem
with the
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi wrote:
I don't understand what the lifetime of MessagePorts to the lifetime of
their owner document
means in case of workers. And we sure want to delete MessagePort objects
if nothing from JS side
is keeping it, or the port
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I could see the GC case not being solvable.
But is there a reason that we couldn't also fire the event if the
other side is forcefully terminated through a navigation or a
Worker.terminate() call?
I still have the
Can you be more specific about what in the spec is incorrect? I guess
you're saying that Gecko shuts down the worker as soon as the parent
document is no longer active (when the worker transitions to suspendable),
so the worker is generally shutdown before the document is discarded?
I think that
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Ehsan Akhgari eh...@mozilla.com wrote:
Why would they expect that? Storing a reference to a port object on a
parent doesn't change the owner of the port. (I agree that this can be a
bit confusing if authors are not familiar with MessagePorts, but this is
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Ehsan Akhgari eh...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.comwrote:
Can you be more specific about what in the spec is incorrect? I guess
you're saying that Gecko shuts down the worker as soon as the parent
document
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Ehsan Akhgari eh...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Ehsan Akhgari eh...@mozilla.com
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nlwrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
*or while there exists an event listener on either port for the
channeldropped event.*
Once you do that you basically rely on the developer
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
What I think might work is to say that as long as a channeldropped
event listener is registered with a port, that is equivalent to
holding a strong reference to the port. I.e. that prevents the channel
from being GCed.
Agreed with Anne - I don't see the value in exposing a non-functional
requestPermission().
Certainly on Chrome (which only allows invoking requestPermission in the
context of user input to prevent abuse) we would be unlikely to support
requestPermission() from workers, at least unless we decide
The notification spec (http://notifications.spec.whatwg.org/#api) says that
the Notification object has the following readonly attributes: title, dir,
lang, body, tag, icon.
Let's say I make the following calls:
var n1 = new Notification(title);
var n2 = new Notification(title, {icon:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
var n1 = new Notification(title);
var n2 = new Notification(title, {icon: invalid_icon_url});
var n3 = new Notification(title, {icon: http
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013, Andrew Wilson wrote:
Interesting. Section 5.3.1 of the MessagePort spec
(BTW, I really recommend using the WHATWG HTML spec rather than the
MessagePort spec, especially the version on the TR/ page
The problem here is that the platform's notification design has no way to
understand what the application wants to happen when the user clicks on a
notification.
As a great example - Gmail uses desktop notifications to notify the user
about chat events and new emails. When the user clicks on a
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
We've on and off discussed various features added to notifications.
It'd be great to move forward with some of these improvements.
I think the most low hanging fruit would be to add the following as
data that
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Hi All,
We've on and off discussed various features added
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
I understand your concern that is driving this proposal: you don't
want to provide rich APIs that can't be well implemented on every
platform
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Peter Beverloo bever...@google.com wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil
Apologies if I miss some subtleties in the preceding discussion - I've
scanned the thread, but I haven't been following closely.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Peter Beverloo bever...@google.com wrote:
Let me reply to a few points mentioned in this thread -- it's quite
overloaded :-).
I've
on them.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Robert Bîndar robertbin...@gmail.com
wrote:
Sounds exactly like an use case of the 'data' attribute.
2014-09-29 12:23 GMT+03:00 Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
* Dropping
- I'm saying that's not
sufficient for many uses.
-atw
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
That only works if 'data' is a structured-cloneable data structure.
Per spec it is yes
seen this
notification. This functionality may be somewhat broken on platforms that
auto-close notifications though.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 1:40 PM
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
OK, looked back into the Gmail code (since it'd been a couple of years
since
I was really down in that notification code). There are two places
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Sep 30, 2014 12:48 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Another thing we could do here is to simply not address this use case.
Does gmail for android do the same thing? I wasn't able to reproduce
it though I might have done something wrong.
AFAICT, no - gmail for android doesn't
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Andrew Wilson atwil...@google.com
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
Another thing we could do here is to simply not address this use case
33 matches
Mail list logo
