Re: Web Intents based APIs

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> On Jun 1, 2012, at 19:12 , Paul Kinlan wrote:
> > The original thought was that the url in the action SHOULD point to the
> detailed documetation/specification for the usage of that action and data.
>
> Yes, that's definitely valuable. It's otherwise known as the "follow your
> nose" approach since given any such code you can directly find the
> documentation for it.
>
> > My question is for all types that are under the namespace
> http://webintents.org/ do you want the process to be managed by the W3C
> under this group? or outside?
>
> These types are very core to Intents, as such I have to say that I have
> concerns over them not being maintained by W3C. This is not about turf (I
> couldn't care less) or trust (I don't trust anyone anyway ;-) but rather
> because W3C makes a number of commitments about the persistence of its
> specifications (and all documents directly relevant to them). I think that
> it would make a lot of sense for the specification and the primary types to
> be controlled by the same entity.
>
> Right now webintents.org is owned by Topicala Ltd from Litherland.
> Imagine that tomorrow I become filthy rich, buy Topicala, and decide that
> "pick" cannot be used to select pictures of kittens because I enjoy using
> my newfound wealth to bring misery to the world. Ok so it won't break the
> Web, but it would create some confusion. Perhaps more to the point, will it
> still be around in a couple centuries?
>
> How amenable would people here be to using http://w3.org/type/* and
> http://w3.org/action/* for common, W3C-standardised types and actions
> (they're even shorter than http://webintents.org/ :)? If you all like
> those, I can't promise that W3C will allocate those (they can be a bit
> *cough* annoying with URI minting) but I can promise that I will mount a
> campaign of W3C management pestering to obtain them that will make Céline
> Dion karaoke a relief in contrast.
>
>
I'm not sure we have a need for w3.org/type since we use MIME-types or
string literals (which presumably *could* be URLs, e.g.
schema.org/ImageObject).  So far we haven't defined any types as coming
from Web Intents.

I wouldn't cry if we did s/webintents.org/w3.org\/action/, but
w3.org/actionis only shorter by one char!  More to the point I feel
like we have a bit
of momentum built up around webintents.org.  I understand your concern
about ownership/trust, and we (Paul, since he owns webintents.org) would be
more than happy to transfer ownership, rights, hosting and what-have-you to
W3C.  Would that cover the persistence issue?

James