W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-intents@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Proposal to add <intent> tag to HTML

From: James Hawkins <jhawkins@google.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:36:31 -0800
Message-ID: <CAO800Sw6s2sRO_USdihd8eRTDXz4at2Om0Ttyjb61ueOcZX7Xg@mail.gmail.com>
To: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Cc: WebIntents <public-web-intents@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:20 AM, timeless <timeless@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2011, James Hawkins <jhawkins@google.com> wrote:
>> I just started a thread on the WhatWG mailing list that proposes the
>> addition of the <intent> tag to HTML.  If you have thoughts or
>> opinions about the proposal, please contribute to the discussion at
>> [1].
> I think your sequence was wrong. We haven't actually talked about the Intent
> tag in this TF, and acting as if the TF supports it is misleading to the
> group involved in the HTML discussion.

It seems my intentions and communications have not been clear enough,
and for that I apologize.

In my proposal to the WhatWG, I use the ambiguous 'we' to refer to the
designers of the API when talking about how we arrived at the <intent>
tag.  I was not referring to 'we', the Web Intents Task Force
participants, who as you've said have not necessarily reached
consensus on this aspect of the API.  I'll clarify that on the thread.

Since the current proposal requires the addition of an HTML tag, the
proper place to discuss that addition is WhatWG; my intent was to have
that part of the discussion happening orthogonaly to discussions about
the rest of the API.  If we have general approval in WhatWG, that's
one less thing we need to take care of at a later point in time.  If
the members of this task force decide to take another route for
registration, at least the discussion on WhatWG will at least be

> W3 WG/TF's aren't created to rubber stamp a proposal that hasn't even been
> submitted...

Correct, I've not made the assumption this task force has accepted the
current draft.

> I'm not saying that the tag or its design are wrong (I suspect and hope that
> they're good/right), just that you should walk the TF through to reach your
> conclusion.

Thank you for your feedback.

Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 19:37:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:14:45 UTC