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

RE: Media Access/Device Storage/Gallery API

From: Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:40:33 +0900
To: 'Robin Berjon' <robin@berjon.com>, 'Steve VanDeBogart' <vandebo@google.com>
Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org, public-sysapps@w3.org, 'WebIntents' <public-web-intents@w3.org>
Message-id: <00e001cd42ee$7e14bb70$7a3e3250$%song@samsung.com>
Robin, thanks for the clarification.

I absolutely agree.

Regards,
Jungkee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 10:10 PM
> To: Steve VanDeBogart
> Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org; public-
> sysapps@w3.org; WebIntents
> Subject: Re: Media Access/Device Storage/Gallery API
> 
> On Jun 1, 2012, at 20:00 , Steve VanDeBogart wrote:
> > I don't think the web intent approach is appropriate for local files
> because it requires too much user intervention; consider a photo album
> type application that is meant to help your organize your local pictures.
> The user wants to be able to grant access to an entire gallery, not just
> individual pictures.  Furthermore, in the steady state, the user won't
> want to select their galleries each time they open their photo album app,
> they'll want it to retain access. Web intents aren't really designed to do
> that and I don't think it makes sense to add that kind of feature.
> 
> I think that the massive cross-post going on here is causing some
> conflation of use cases.
> 
> Steve's example use case is valid, and within the context of the SysApps
> group it would certainly be valuable to provide a powerful gallery API
> that can do much more than the intents version, possibly without user
> intervention. In fact, implementing a local content intent would likely
> require such an API. That's for the part that SysApps is concerned with.
> 
> Within DAP's scope, a very simple and straightforward intents-based
> gallery API, with its known limitations, is equally useful (but for
> different uses). That's why DAP's in the loop.
> 
> The Intents TF is in the loop because the API proposed for DAP uses
> Intents (and has an implementation: https://github.com/jungkees/gallery/).
> 
> There is natural overlap and complementarity between an intents-based API
> and a system level one, if only in terms of the metadata that's attached,
> and possibly in how one represents input (e.g. searches) and output
(files,
> URIs, etc.). I see that both are needed, and as the two are being
> developed it would be very useful if a communication channel were kept
> open.
> 
> But I don't think that crossing the beams is useful just yet! It would
> likely be more productive to keep different thread separate as this
> discussion evolves; more specifically:
> 
> . For SysApps, what are the use cases for this API (no matter what it's
> called) and should it be prioritised.
> . For DAP, do we like the proposed design for the intent and how do we
> move forward on refinements, publication, etc.
> . For Intents, looking at what Jungkee put together are the obvious issues
> with intents for this use case and if any how can they be addressed.
> 
> I think the resulting discussions will be a lot clearer :)
> 
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 07:41:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 June 2012 07:41:58 GMT