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

Re: Web Intents - Suggested Deliverables (part 2)

From: Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 01:56:23 +0000
Message-ID: <CADGdg3B-_sT=GDio0pCtD294YeGaTYuEQEUNxYjZvdmaF2Amjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Cc: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>, public-web-intents@w3.org
to text/plain - sorry.

Yes we discussed the intent tag on public-webaps [1], or at least the
reason about it be declared in the html over a manifest file.

I don't believe the meta element was directly discussed, but the
reasoning behind our choice of new tag is: 1) it is a new platform
feature with elements and attributes that don't fit in the meta name
and content model
2) encoding data into the content attribute is error prone
2a) parsing data encoded in the content attribute will be error prone
3) if we chose not to encode, we would introduce a lot of extra
attributes that are very specific to one case
4) it can be validated by parsers and by eye with greater ease
5) a separate DOM element can have those properties exposed
individually via scripting, for instance there would be a
DOMIntentElement that can be compared as an instanceof and also have
access to the specific attributes.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1518.html

P

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> By "intent tag", you mean the propose <intent> element, right?
>
> Is there a reason you believe a new element for this is needed, rather
> than, say, using the <meta> element?
>
> If there's been some discussion about that elsewhere already, and you've
> explained it, maybe just post a pointer to that discussion here (so we can
> have it in the mail archive for this group too -- for the next time
> somebody asks).
>
> Maybe that explanation is something that you could add to
> http://webintents.org/faq.html as well.
>
> Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>, 2011-11-22 01:23 +0000:
>
> > I want to ensure that an custom intent tag is not excluded from this
> > discussion.  We should also scope out areas where discovery is not included
> > but provided for, in the case of esoteric devices not considered in this
> > scope that might have network discovery mechanisms etc.
>
> --
> Michael[tm] Smith
> http://people.w3.org/mike/+



--
Paul Kinlan
Developer Advocate @ Google for Chrome and HTML5
G+: http://plus.ly/paul.kinlan
t: +447730517944
tw: @Paul_Kinlan
LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/paulkinlan
Blog: http://paul.kinlan.me
Skype: paul.kinlan
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 01:56:54 UTC

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