Comment 49 for bug 501393

(In reply to comment #48)
> (In reply to comment #46)
> > 1) might have been discussed, but it wasn't implemented (the implementation
> > just dropped actions no matter what.
>
> Right, but it's bad for the same reason. We can't drop callbacks like the
> original implementation did it, and we also can't do it depending on the
> notification server -- unless we care only about a know set of servers and are
> confident that they'll continue to support actions.

but if the server does not announce "actions" capability adding them does not make it better :) ... anyway, i think the right way to move forward would be 2) as in comment 46