Re: questions on the April 11th draft

Thanks for your answers. More questions inline.

On 19avr. 21:05, Greg Billock wrote:
> To unregister, I can put on  http://example.com/a.html the markup:
>
> <intent href="http://example.com/b.html"></intent>
>
> which basically says "this service handles no intents." Since it is
> same-origin, it should be honored.
JCD: If you just change a.html this way, when is the intent unregistered ?
Are you doing another action with that change to get a.html to be 
processed by the browser ?

Or is a.html sitting there with the intent still registered in the 
browser until the next time someone invokes it,
so a.html is loaded, the browser sees the unregistering, and has to go 
back up into intent resolution ?
This assumes that the registration markup page is the same as the 
service page.
If so, I am not sure I like it.

If the registration markup page and the service page are different, then 
I have no idea when the intent will ever be unregistered.

Note: please add an example with separate registration markup page and 
service page. Thanks.
>
> Let me note quickly that this is the registration interaction with the
> browser, which is a little tricky. For instance, if a captive portal
> returns unrelated HTML to a request for a service page, should the
> browser be forced to unregister it? Hopefully not.
JCD: Actually, there are two variants of your question:

- if a registration markup page is loaded "again" and this time there is 
no intent registration in there, yes, probably, no change to the intent 
registration DB.

- if a service page is loaded and it does not contain any intent 
processing code, what happens ?
-- definitely, the intent will get no response (if one was in order)
-- should there be an error message ? I think yes.
-- should the intent be removed from the intent registration DB ? I 
would argue it should, yes.

However, I do not know if the browser can throw an error, because its 
task is to just load the service page. If nothing happens, what is there 
to alert the browser that something is wrong...

>   But the interaction
> of the tag and intent delivery is of a MUST nature -- the UA won't
> deliver an intent to a page that doesn't expect it.
JCD: That means intents are going to be HARD to debug. If the service 
page is clobbered, silent failure ? I do not like it...

>
> At some point, this'll get tuned into an algorithm spec for dealing
> with the<intent>  tag. I'm holding off on that a bit because it's
> likely to grow a little more complicated as we consider
> registerProtocolHandler/registerContentHandler issues with
> registration. (See the WhatWG list.)
JCD: Are you saying a significant part of the web intents discussion 
happens on the WhatWG list ?
Or just talk that has impact on Web Intents ?

Thanks
JC

Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 07:09:17 UTC