On 12 January 2016 at 20:38, Martin Thomson
wrote:
> The Push API is intended for infrequent messages
I don't recall this being stated as a design goal or implicit requirement,
though I may have missed it. What counts as *infrequent* in this context?
Regards
Ben
On 16 January 2016 at 08:06, Ben Last wrote:
> I don't recall this being stated as a design goal or implicit requirement,
> though I may have missed it. What counts as infrequent in this context?
Maybe it wasn't express, but implied.
There are a few simple drivers for this:
1. Push messaging is
Thanks for that Costin although I'm not sure if you are advocating for use of
Web Push in this role or stating that there would be benefits if it was
designed to support this workload better.
The biggest case where is see a limit in specified functionality is for in-page
updates like updating
Nice thanks!
> On 13 Jan 2016, at 10:15, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> Paul, just for you: https://github.com/w3c/push-api/issues/179
>
>> On 13 January 2016 at 19:17, Paul Banks wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification. This makes sense to me.
>>
>> Perhaps I missed it - I'll rea
Paul, just for you: https://github.com/w3c/push-api/issues/179
On 13 January 2016 at 19:17, Paul Banks wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Thanks for the clarification. This makes sense to me.
>
> Perhaps I missed it - I'll read again closely but I wonder if that intent
> could be expressed in those clear t
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the clarification. This makes sense to me.
Perhaps I missed it - I'll read again closely but I wonder if that intent could
be expressed in those clear terms in the draft text? I don't recall seeing
"infrequent" messaging mentioned at all for example.
Thanks again.
Pau
Hi Paul,
The Push API is intended for infrequent messages. If you have a page
open to site, it might still be suitable to rely on push for messages
that are infrequent or unpredictable. However, if you are actively
communicating with your site, it is best to use more direct means of
sending mess
