W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:23:30 -0800
Message-ID: <4EC6A2A2.7010300@jumis.com>
To: Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>
CC: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>, public-webapps Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On 11/18/11 1:40 AM, Paul Kinlan wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com 
> <mailto:gbillock@google.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Charles Pritchard
>     <chuck@jumis.com <mailto:chuck@jumis.com>> wrote:
>
>         As far as I can tell, the model doesn't prohibit, nor does it
>         encourage, the passing of MessageChannel.
>         It's very much made for an RPC style of communication, but if
>         the message being passed back is a channel, well that's just fine.
>
>         Am I mistaken? What I'm seeing is that we get MessageChannel
>         for free, and there's no need to specify further.
>         Individual Intent authors can do that themselves.
>
>
>
>     Yes. We envision RPC-style request/response as the sweet spot for
>     intents. We've definitely considered use cases which are better
>     served by opening a persistent
>
> On the subject of MessageChannels, my thoughts have been that you 
> don't pass the data across it, as you would for say "share" "image/*", 
> but rather it is the initiation of a protocol - whose mime-type is yet 
> to be determined; something like application/x-protocol-uucp

My concern is the plumbing of Transferable.
Sending Array Buffers across channels is great for short apps.

Here's the webkit meta-bug as they work on postMessage semantics.
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64629

It's a "transfer" intent. I'm transferring ownership of a buffer or a 
stream.
It's still appropriate that mime types be specified. Many protocols have 
them.

-Charles
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 18:24:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:24 GMT