[whatwg] Background Geolocation for Progressive Web-Apps

Cor, steady on Hixie, it wasn’t me yelling that “WHATWG is broken”. All I’m trying to do is get someone (not me) to start development on a solution for background geolocation in HTML5 Web Apps. Sorry if my post was in/pas apropos. > all that matters is the quality of arguments and data

Re: [whatwg] window.opener security issues (Was: WhatWG is broken)

I see what you're saying Michael and also agree it's serious. Would I be correct in thinking that MS Edge solves the problem by not returning window.opener cross-domain? Is the UA not a logical and uniform place for this? BTW I've also experienced the CitHub topic-closure nazis many times :-(

Re: [whatwg] Background Geolocation for Progressive Web-Apps

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Karl Dubost <k...@la-grange.net> wrote: > > Le 2 déc. 2016 à 08:53, Richard Maher <mahe...@googlemail.com> a écrit : > > The main goal of background geolocation reporting > > Previous related threads: > https://groups.goo

[whatwg] Intent to implement: Background Geolocation for Progressive Web-Apps

Contact emails mahe...@gmail.com *Summary* Secure, user-sanctioned geolocation collection is currently unavailable for HTML5 Web-Apps when they are not running or in the foreground. This leaves the browser hosted applications incapable of competing with Native Apps on an even playing field.

Re: [whatwg] Push API and Endpoints

Personally. I'd vote for endpoint mapping to be done in the Message Service with Topic based subscriptions. Just like GCM/GCM, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft support.

Re: [whatwg] window.opener security issues (Was: WhatWG is broken)

, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Michael A. Peters <mpet...@domblogger.net> wrote: > If window.opener() did not work cross-domain then as far as I can tell > that would be secure. > > > On 12/01/2016 07:23 PM, Richard Maher wrote: > >> I see what you're saying Michael and al

[whatwg] Firebase Cloud Messaging (FCM) blows the W3C/IETF Success Prevention Depts out of the water!

less stick to beat us over the head with. And you Firefox fans are no longer stuck with Mozilla's third-rate AutoPush! Now if we can only get background geolocation with ServiceWorkers nothing can stop WebApps: - https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/745 Happy Days!!! Cheers Richard Maher PS

Re: [whatwg] Accessing local files with JavaScript portably and securely

> The main thing that seems to be missing from this thread is any commitment > from any browser vendors to actually support any changes in this space. It has been my experience that browser vendors, more often than not, require at least a (proposed) standard before they will consider

Re: [whatwg] Firebase Cloud Messaging (FCM) blows the W3C/IETF Success Prevention Depts out of the water!

of the water! > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Roger Hågensen <rh_wha...@skuldwyrm.no> wrote: >> On 2017-03-27 05:50, Richard Maher wrote: >> Broadcast Messaging and Topic Based subscription is now available to your >> WebApp just like native Apps thanks to FCM. >&g

Re: [whatwg] Firebase Cloud Messaging (FCM) blows the W3C/IETF Success Prevention Depts out of the water!

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Roger Hågensen <rh_wha...@skuldwyrm.no<mailto:rh_wha...@skuldwyrm.no>> wrote: On 2017-03-27 05:50, Richard Maher wrote: Broadcast Messaging and Topic Based subscription is now available to your WebApp just like native Apps thanks to

Re: [whatwg] Accessing local files with JavaScript portably and securely

WHATWG is a venue > that is open to anyone willing to take part in relevant technical debate. Then please stop censoring my posts or manufacturing chicken-and-egg pre-requisites for topics you are not interested in. From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:47 AM T

[whatwg] Expected ratio of ServiceWorker instances to Geolocation Updates

For some time I've been arguing with W3C/IETF (and anyone else who'd engage) that ServiceWorkers are the ideal platform to host the Background Geolocation functionality that Ultimate Web Apps need in order to compete on a level playing field with Native Apps. The sticking point is usually the

[whatwg] Permissions required for Background GeoLocation

When it comes to an Ultimate Web App tracking a user's location in the background (while UWA is backgrounded or phone is asleep) how can the user (and Web Standards) ensure that the user is not tracked covertly, maliciously, or unintentionally? Can any please help, offer opinions, with the "best"

Re: [whatwg] Expected ratio of ServiceWorker instances to Geolocation Updates

SS transitions. *PLEASE* help Background GeoLocation get up and help Web Apps compete with Native Apps! If there is something wrong with my TravelManager solution design then let me know. Tear holes in it! On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Richard Maher <mahe...@googlemail.com> wrote: > For so

[whatwg] When to use the new GeolocationSensor API?

When would one opt to use the Sensor GeoLocation API as opposed to the existing standard navigator.geolocation.watchPosition? Can someone explain the added value of this second API or the use-cases that can be solved by the sensor API that cannot

Re: [whatwg] How to handle Session Expiry in ServiceWorker

It seems there has been discussion on this before. Please see GitHub I think that background re-authenticating should be infrequent enough that a notification of the sign-in or failure is an appropriate and user-friendly solution. Please

[whatwg] How to handle Session Expiry in ServiceWorker

If a Fetch in my ServiceWorker receives a 401 from the server how do I re-authenticate with the server if I have no focused or foregrounded client? NB: I'm talking about POST requests updating the server and not just reading from cache until the network is back. Bring the client back into focus?

[whatwg] Expose GeoLocation to workers #745

/issues/745 I do not understand Marcos' claim that there is little browser interest when Edge and Chrome are waiting on a specification to implement. Firefox already allows tracking of users in the background today. Cheers Richard Maher

Re: [whatwg] Expose GeoLocation to workers #745

Yeah that's what I thought :-( On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Richard Maher <mahe...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Regarding the very recent comments following on from: - > https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/745#issuecomment-344128148 > > Can any of you please exp

[whatwg] It's BackgroundGeolocation Zeit!

Richard Maher <mahe...@googlemail.com> 10:00 AM (2 minutes ago) to Chaals, Ben, WHAT, Chaals, Natan, public-geoloca., ehsan, alia, jmann, beidson, eoconnor, weinig, Kenji, jungkee.song Mate, how does Background Geolocation get to bypass this narcissistic obstructionism? Are there no adults

[whatwg] Popular Background Geolocation question on StackOverflow

FYI This question on StackOverflow has now had over 1000 views: - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44233409/background-geolocation-serviceworker-onmessage-event-order-when-web-app-regain Please explain why nothing is happening.

Re: [whatwg] ServiceWorker bottle-neck design flaw - MS Edge to the rescue?

hanks to FCM we can access this much needed functionality so I let it go. 2) Background Geolocation. As ShamWow guys says "It sells itself". Why, WHY, *WHY* are people saying NO to this? Cheers Richard On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Richard Maher <mahe...@googlemail.com> wrote:

[whatwg] ServiceWorker bottle-neck design flaw - MS Edge to the rescue?

t’s go! But my question here is this: - Can someone please confirm that Edge implements multiple, specialist SW instances? Cheers Richard Maher