Re: Specifying passed and return types

Greg wrote:
> 1. The "action" and "type" fields of an intent should be opaque strings as
> regards the API.

seems reasonable

> 2. What a service (Partner) can expect in the "data" field of the intent is
> governed as a function of the "type" exclusively.

seems reasonable

> 3. What data the client should expect in return from a particular intent is a
> more complex function, but a function strictly of inputs. However, it is not
> strictly a function of the "type" field, but is instead a function of
> the "action," "type," and possibly of parts of the "data" field as well.

seems reasonable