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 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.
Does gmail for android do the same thing? I wasn't able to reproduce
it though
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.
On Oct 1, 2014 4:31 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
Combined with dropping the open event, I think I have enough to rework
the current Notifications API. Is there anything I'm missing?
I just remembered that another thing that came up was the ability to remove
a notification bases
From: whatwg [mailto:whatwg-boun...@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Jonas Sicking
Generally speaking we tend to leave UI up to browsers and avoid speccing it.
However given that notifications is all about UI I think doing so effectively
makes the feature untrustable for authors. We don't need
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I agree. One of the big shortcomings of the current spec is that it
leaves UI too undefined. This is particularly problematic given that
notifications is all about using UI to get certain types of user
attention.
I'm
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
While JS running in the page can't tell a difference, the
user certainly can so it can still be perceived as a breaking change.
Yeah, we'll need to see if new Notification() can be changed enough or
whether we need three
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
Per
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2014Sep/0100.html
and other emails in that thread it seems like the show event can be
removed from notifications altogether. I will remove it.
Done.
--
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
http://intertwingly.net/stories/2014/10/05/urltest-results/24f081633d
This does not match what I find in browsers. (I did not look through
the list exhaustively, see below, but since this was the first one...)
I also found
On 10/06/2014 12:42 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
http://intertwingly.net/stories/2014/10/05/urltest-results/24f081633d
This does not match what I find in browsers. (I did not look through
the list exhaustively, see below,
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On 10/06/2014 12:42 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
http://intertwingly.net/stories/2014/10/05/urltest-results/24f081633d
This does not match what I find
On 10/06/2014 12:59 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On 10/06/2014 12:42 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
I agree. One of the big shortcomings of the current spec is that it
leaves UI too undefined. This is particularly problematic given that
notifications
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
Yeah, it seems like we need to keep this. Through opt-in works.
It seems like if we keep this event it should at the very least be
possible to tell closed because of user action from closed because
of timeout or other
14 matches
Mail list logo
