Drop permissionState()'s argument? #417

Activity

1. beverloo commented on Dec 1, 2025

   

   beverloo

   on Dec 1, 2025

   Member

   More actions

   The motivation was that a user agent might have granted permission for user visible push messages, but not for invisible ones. This was mirrored in the push permission descriptor for permissions.query() for the same reason.

   I believe that Chrome OS might've had a case in which this is relevant, other Chrome platforms only consider user visible permission requests & queries. Firefox never supported this according to MDN, so compatibility will be complicated anyway.
2. annevk commented on Dec 1, 2025

   

   annevk

   on Dec 1, 2025

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   I see, but any conforming implementation is required to ignore the argument (except for IDL purposes) as things stand today specification-wise.

   But it's clear Chromium is doing something else:

     // The `userVisibleOnly` flag on |options| must be set, as it's intended to be
     // a contract with the developer that they will show a notification upon
     // receiving a push message. Permission is denied without this setting.
     //
     // TODO(peter): Would it be better to resolve DENIED rather than rejecting?
     if (!options->hasUserVisibleOnly() || !options->userVisibleOnly()) {
       resolver->Reject(MakeGarbageCollected<DOMException>(
           DOMExceptionCode::kNotSupportedError, kUserVisibleOnlyRequired));
       return promise;
     }