[whatwg] The behaviour of Notification.requestPermission() in Workers

Andrew Wilson atwilson at google.com
Thu Oct 24 04:42:12 PDT 2013

Agreed with Anne - I don't see the value in exposing a non-functional

Certainly on Chrome (which only allows invoking requestPermission in the
context of user input to prevent abuse) we would be unlikely to support
requestPermission() from workers, at least unless we decide to change that

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at annevk.nl>wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Nikhil Marathe <nsm.nikhil at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The easiest solution for implementors and authors is to make the
> > requestPermission() call in a HTML page before spawning a worker or
> > registering a service worker. Inside the Worker scope we then have two
> > options:
> > 1) requestPermission() is not defined.
> > 2) requestPermission() does not ask the user, but uses the permission
> > associated with that origin, or denied.
> >
> > I believe option 2 is better in terms of having a complete API.
> >
> > Feedback is appreciated about what the right approach should be.
> Given that Notificaiton.permission exists, I'm not sure what the
> additional value of Notification.requestPermission() in a worker
> context would be.
> --
> http://annevankesteren.nl/

More information about the whatwg mailing list