Re: Push API change for permissions UX

[Jake Archibald]

This discussion is about how often push may be processed silently (without
showing a notification), not if a push notification may *only* show a
notification.

The latter was shown to be insufficient in the other thread.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Owen Campbell-Moore owe...@google.com
wrote:
 I think it might make sense to ask for permission to display
 notifications/UI at the same time as you ask for permission to run in
the
 background.

 I hope the above explains why we believe that while some sites may want to
 ask for both permissions, they should be able to say to the user Hey, I
 want to send you notifications, without saying Hey, I want to run in the
 background whenever I want for any reason.

I suggest that if we attempt to solve this use case, that we do it by
adding the ability to send push messages that directly create a
notification, without waking up a SW.

There's recently been a separate thread about that.

/ Jonas

Progressing Packaging on the Web Specification

[Jeni Tennison]

Hi,

At the last TAG F2F [1], we agreed that the Packaging on the Web draft [2] 
(repo at [3]) is ready for publication as a First Public Working Draft. As 
shown by the F2F minutes, there are  some issues to work through, but not more 
than you’d expect for a FPWD.

This email is to pass this over to the Web Applications WG, whose charter [4] 
includes delivering a Recommendation along these lines. I believe the chairs of 
that group will follow up.

Cheers,

Jeni

[1] 
https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/blob/gh-pages/2014/sept29-oct1/09-29-f2f-minutes.md#packaging
 
[2] http://w3ctag.github.io/packaging-on-the-web/
[3] https://github.com/w3ctag/packaging-on-the-web
[4] http://www.w3.org/2014/06/webapps-charter.html
--  
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/

CfC: publish FPWD of Packaging on the Web; deadline November 3

[Arthur Barstow]

Jeni and the TAG would like to publish - on behalf of both the TAG and 
WebApps - a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of the Packaging on the 
Web specification and this is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to do so using 
the following ED as the basis:


http://w3ctag.github.io/packaging-on-the-web/

This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the groups' 
decision to request advancement.


By publishing this FPWD, the group sends a signal to the community to 
begin reviewing the document. The FPWD reflects where the groups are on 
this spec at the time of publication; it does _not_ necessarily mean 
there is consensus on the spec's contents.


If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please reply to 
this e-mail by November 3 at the latest. Positive response is preferred 
and encouraged, and silence will be considered as agreement with the 
proposal.


-Thanks, AB

 Original Message 
Subject:Progressing Packaging on the Web Specification
Date:   Sun, 26 Oct 2014 17:02:13 -0700
From:   Jeni Tennison j...@jenitennison.com
To: www-...@w3.org, public-webapps@w3.org
CC: 	art.bars...@gmail.com, cha...@yandex-team.ru, 
daniel.appelqu...@telefonica.com, yla...@w3.org, Peter Linss 
peter.li...@hp.com




Hi,

At the last TAG F2F [1], we agreed that the Packaging on the Web draft [2] 
(repo at [3]) is ready for publication as a First Public Working Draft. As 
shown by the F2F minutes, there are  some issues to work through, but not more 
than you’d expect for a FPWD.

This email is to pass this over to the Web Applications WG, whose charter [4] 
includes delivering a Recommendation along these lines. I believe the chairs of 
that group will follow up.

Cheers,

Jeni

[1] 
https://github.com/w3ctag/meetings/blob/gh-pages/2014/sept29-oct1/09-29-f2f-minutes.md#packaging
[2] http://w3ctag.github.io/packaging-on-the-web/
[3] https://github.com/w3ctag/packaging-on-the-web
[4] http://www.w3.org/2014/06/webapps-charter.html
--
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/