W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > October 2012

RE: Content of URL picked by Intent

From: Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:35:01 +0900
To: 'WebIntents' <public-web-intents@w3.org>, public-device-apis@w3.org
Cc: 'Brett van Zuiden' <brettcvz@filepicker.io>, 'Tobie Langel' <tobie@fb.com>, 'Norifumi Kikkawa' <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com>, 'Paul Kinlan' <paulkinlan@google.com>, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com, 'Greg Billock' <gbillock@google.com>
Message-id: <001a01cda03e$24371aa0$6ca54fe0$%song@samsung.com>
Hi,

I posted a demo of Pick Media Intent [1] spec:
- http://jungkees.github.com/media-intent/

This demo provides a demo client which invokes pick Intent to get media
objects and two Intent services, "flickr search" and "YouTube search". It
will not be hard for you to follow the guide in the above link.

I hope you get some better idea what Pick Media Intent does. I'm looking
forward to hearing all your feedback. Also, I would like to find some
service and content provider who can volunteer to implement better reference
services. ;)

[1] http://w3c-test.org/dap/gallery/


Jungkee


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Billock [mailto:gbillock@google.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:35 PM
> 
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Greg Billock [mailto:gbillock@google.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:38 AM
> >>
> >> Thinking about
> >> non-MIME type data, it seems like the best solution is to have a
> >> different collection type for, say, multiple images (a "gallery" or
> >> "album" perhaps) as opposed to a single image.
> >
> > Pick Media Intent [1] is meant to specify interfaces for the very use
> cases.
> 
> Yes. I think exchanging collection types intended for that from the
> beginning is much more natural. Agreed that aligning the vocabulary to
> what we use for MIME would be a good plan (We also need to update it
> to not use extras.)
> 
> This makes me realize that another viable option is the "you do that
> this other way" option -- that is, maybe exchanging collections of
> images (or video) should be done through a completely separate type,
> and not try to use MIME for this at all. It is certainly awkward to do
> so, so perhaps we should just stop trying to wedge it in.
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 01:35:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 October 2012 01:35:38 GMT