W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-intents@w3.org > January 2012

Re: Is there an existing mechanism that can be used for WebIntents?

From: Mike Kelly <mikekelly321@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:54:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CANqiZJZMzyKORyn2QR1YCWyaAeMp53DuEpmSgxsOM-X-K-BnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Hawkins <jhawkins@chromium.org>
Cc: public-web-intents@w3.org
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM, James Hawkins <jhawkins@chromium.org>wrote:

> There are a few drawbacks with using the link element.
> * link must appear in the head and is a void element.
>   - This prevents the use case of the service site providing alternative
> UI if <intent> is not supported: <intent ...>Intents are not supported!
>  Check out this work-around</intent>
>

Both of these issues are worth exploring with html5 working group, more
than happy to get involved on this.


> * In the current syntax you provided, how would the UA know this is an
> intent registration?  Per the spec, |action| is just a string; we use URLs
> to set precedence as a developer-friendly way of documenting the action.
>

Presumably UAs only react to the @action tokens they understand? Using link
will provide them with a slightly larger set of elements to go through to
find these, which should not present an issue - am I missing something here?


> * We'd have to change the HTML parsing algorithm.
>
>
I'm not au fait with the implementation here, is this a significant
undertaking?


> Can you share your objections to using the <intent> element?
>

It is, ostensibly, a link.. so why not expose it as one? There is a lot of
existing web infrastructure that is already geared up to work with links.
e.g. atom has a link element, we have the Link header in HTTP, and links
and relations are already familiar to developers.

Linking is a very 'web' thing, so re-using <link> would make web intents
'fit in' better with the rest of the web.

Cheers,
Mike


>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Mike Kelly <mikekelly321@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> Ok thanks, that being the case, what is the difference between <link> vs
>> <intent> and @rel vs @action in the following example:
>>
>> <intent action="http://webintents.org/subscribe" type=".."  href=".." />
>>
>> <link rel="http://webintents.org/subscribe" type=".." href=".." />
>>
>> So, is it possible for web intents to simply re-use the existing,
>> ubiquitous <link> instead of having to introduce <intent>?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mike
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This was something that I started to document under
>>> http://webintents.org/subscribe - the intents discovery mechanism in
>>> the spec doesn't preculde a UA from detecting this and allowing the user to
>>> invoke an action to subscribe to the feed using their preferred application.
>>>
>>> P
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Mike Kelly <mikekelly321@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering whether an example of 'web intent' behaviour has
>>>> already existed for some time:
>>>>
>>>> The example I am thinking of is driven by atom/rss links in the head
>>>> of HTML pages, i.e. an html page containing the following link in the
>>>> head of the document..
>>>>
>>>> <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" href="...." />
>>>>
>>>> .... this causes a browser (e.g. Firefox) to present the user with the
>>>>
>>>> option to 'Subscribe to This Page' where the user can fulfil their
>>>> 'subscription intent'.
>>>>
>>>> Would this be considered an equivalent of a web intent?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 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 Thursday, 19 January 2012 16:55:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 January 2012 16:55:03 GMT