On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Doug Turner doug.tur...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been thinking a bit on Desktop Notifications [1]. After reviewing
the Web Notification specification [2], I would like to propose the
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Doug Turner doug.tur...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have been thinking a bit on Desktop Notifications [1]. After
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Doug Turner doug.tur...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Drew,
I think this is too vague, as it's sounds like a user agent could *not*
ignore markup in the string, and still be compliant with the spec. I think
we need to be very explicit that the string *must* be
On Jun 24, 2010, at 21:00 , Doug Turner wrote:
On Jun 24, 2010, at 11:48 AM, John Gregg wrote:
interface Permissions {
// permission values
const unsigned long PERMISSION_ALLOWED = 0;
const unsigned long PERMISSION_UNKNOWN = 1;
const unsigned long PERMISSION_DENIED = 2;
Small nit, but
On Jun 24, 2010, at 20:38 , Doug Turner wrote:
3) Move Web notifications to a version 2 of the specification. For the most
basic use cases, this API isn't required and a web developer could use the
more base API to simulate this. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, many
system-level
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Doug Turner doug.tur...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been thinking a bit on Desktop Notifications [1]. After reviewing
the Web Notification specification [2], I would like to propose the
following changes:
1) Factor out the permission api into a new interface
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Doug Turner doug.tur...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for your quick response!
On Jun 24, 2010, at 11:48 AM, John Gregg wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Doug Turner doug.tur...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been thinking a bit on Desktop Notifications [1].
cc'ing Andrei Popescu - the editor of the Geolocation spec. Not sure how to
formally answer your question. However, if the permission api above was
implemented, I think it naturally follows that geolocation would be one of
the known strings.
I think it's reasonable. On the other
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Doug Turner doug.tur...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Drew,
I think this is too vague, as it's sounds like a user agent could *not*
ignore markup in the string, and still be compliant with the spec. I think
we need to be very explicit that the string *must* be
I'm happy with this course of action, but first I wanted to ask why not
the gracefully degrade suggestion from the Notifications thread started
on the 3rd of Feb. As far as I can tell, it was never seriously considered,
but several of us brought it up. And I feel like it'd be a much better
On Jun 25, 2010, at 8:39 AM, John Gregg wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Doug Turner doug.tur...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Drew,
I think this is too vague, as it's sounds like a user agent could *not*
ignore markup in the string, and still be compliant with the spec. I think
we
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:44 PM, John Gregg john...@google.com wrote:
I'm happy with this course of action, but first I wanted to ask why not
the gracefully degrade suggestion from the Notifications thread started
on the 3rd of Feb. As far as I can tell, it was never seriously considered,
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:44 PM, John Gregg john...@google.com wrote:
I'm happy with this course of action, but first I wanted to ask why not
the gracefully degrade suggestion from the Notifications thread started
on
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Doug Turner doug.tur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 25, 2010, at 8:39 AM, John Gregg wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Doug Turner doug.tur...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hey Drew,
I think this is too vague, as it's sounds like a user agent could *not*
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:01 PM, John Gregg john...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:44 PM, John Gregg john...@google.com wrote:
I'm happy with this course of action, but first I wanted to ask why not
the
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:01 PM, John Gregg john...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.orgwrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:44 PM, John Gregg john...@google.com wrote:
I'm concerned that it would make it impossible to display a certain category
of strings in notifications. Suppose we're both web devs, I'm chatting with
you and want to share with you a snippet of code; will the chat notification
be blank?
I agree with the problem of depending on the
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Well, getting things to look would possibly take more effort on a web
developer's part, but having _anything_ show up (for developers who only
target browsers that support HTML) would always work...even if poorly. With
I have been thinking a bit on Desktop Notifications [1]. After reviewing the
Web Notification specification [2], I would like to propose the following
changes:
1) Factor out the permission api into a new interface and/or spec. The ability
to test for a permission without bring up a UI would
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Doug Turner doug.tur...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been thinking a bit on Desktop Notifications [1]. After reviewing
the Web Notification specification [2], I would like to propose the
following changes:
1) Factor out the permission api into a new interface
Thank you for your quick response!
On Jun 24, 2010, at 11:48 AM, John Gregg wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Doug Turner doug.tur...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been thinking a bit on Desktop Notifications [1]. After reviewing the
Web Notification specification [2], I would like to
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Doug Turner doug.tur...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been thinking a bit on Desktop Notifications [1]. After reviewing
the Web Notification specification [2], I would like to propose the
following changes:
1) Factor out the permission api into a new interface
Hey Drew,
I think this is too vague, as it's sounds like a user agent could *not*
ignore markup in the string, and still be compliant with the spec. I think we
need to be very explicit that the string *must* be treated as plain text. So
if I pass in gt;bfoo/b as the body parameter to
23 matches
Mail list logo
