-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
"setting presentation.defaultRequest will have no effect" note is ambiguous #359
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
The intent is that the attribute setting algorithm [1] completes, but there is no attribute-specific behavior for Since the spec does not override the attribute setting algorithm, the meaning seems clear enough to me, but the text could be explicit that the attribute is set. |
There's another issue with starting a default presentation. The spec says that the controlling user agent should run the steps to start a presentation (starting at step 2). However, it's not clear that the user agent should construct a Promise as part of those steps (as there's nowhere to return it.) Maybe we can adjust the language or construct a new algorithm that omits the Promise related steps. |
I am now thinking about the current behaviour of defaultRequest. In current spec the controlling page get notified (using
in this case we don't need to constrict a new algorithm for default request. What do you think? |
The current spec doesn't assume there's a dialog (permission can be granted other ways) so we'd have to craft an algorithm that fires a dummy event in those cases to deliver a Promise that resolves immediately. In my opinion it adds extra complexity to the API, which can be avoided by adjusting other parts of the spec. I think a simpler fix is to just break the start a presentation algorithm into two parts (at step 13) and make step 19 optional (i.e. pass an optional Promise to the second half of the algorithm). When the user agents wants to start a presentation from a defaultRequest, it would pass D with no Promise to step 13. |
PR #369 updates the specs along the lines of my previous comment. @louaybassbouss Would you like to continue discussion of a new event for display selection? I can file a separate issue for that. |
Assuming the PR addressed the original issue, closing this. |
See related discussion between @schien and @tomoyukilabs on Web Platform Tests repository: web-platform-tests/wpt#3844
In particular, @schien notes that:
To which @tomoyukilabs replies:
I would read the spec as @tomoyukilabs. Regardless of who is correct, it seems a good idea to clarify the expected behavior!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: