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

Re: Web Intents - Suggested Deliverables (part 2)

From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:46:46 -0500
Message-ID: <CAACrNNc6w8_2+rtLyD7fFcuusaPJMe9=2wAkrEwXibECM8mFSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-web-intents@w3.org
Cc: Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com> wrote:
>> B. Provider Description Definition For Discovery.

> 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.

Yes I didn't mean to exclude an <intent> tag, those bits were merely
intended as examples.

>> E. Basic Actions
>> Probably one per Action (Share, Call, Print, Location, ...).
>
> I would say that we need to define that actions that we want under the scope
> of the working group and thus managed by the spec.

Well, in the case of DAP, we have Contacts in our Charter, and I
intend to write an Intents based version partially to show that it can
work.

It could be the case that the TF actually publishes <Zero> Basic
Actions, however, I think not having any sample actions for people to
use as a model isn't a good way to do things.

> Or we may decided that
> no actions should be included in the spec other than for examples and
> usecases.

Perhaps we simply point to other groups who publish intents. Note that
I'm raising this item to get opinions about how many and which, not to
dictate the list or anything.
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 21:47:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 November 2011 21:47:13 GMT