Re: Web Intents W3C Editor's Draft 31 January 2012 - Review comments

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
> wrote:
> > Great job Greg.
> >
> > I'd like to see the intent element section brought closer in line with
> > HTML5's spec semantics.
> > http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-canvas-element
>
> Thanks, Charles. I hadn't seen that form. I'll switch to it.
>
> > With the intent registration tag, the only Category would be "Embedded
> > content".
> > Include in the definition that the <intent> may have fallback content.
> >
> > ....
> >
> > The WebIDL on the constructor is a little dated. I believe that "raises"
> and
> > "in" were taken out of current IDL.
> > [Constructor(in string action, in string type, in optional any
> >         data, in optional sequence<Transferable> transferList, in
> optional
> > dictionary<string> extraData) raises DOMException]
> >
> > I want to confirm that this IDL was intended; my understanding earlier
> was
> > that it would be:
> > [Constructor(DOMString action, DOMString type, optional any data,
> optional
> > sequence<Transferable> transferList),
> > Constructor(DOMString action, DOMString type, optional any data, optional
> > Dictionary<DOMString> extraData)]
>
> I brought this up at the end of the thread about extras. What are
> folks' opinions about using two constructors vs. having one with more
> optional parameters? I favor having the one so that ports and extra
> metadata can be mixed, even though it'll lead to an empty array
> parameter sometimes.
>
>
We can't self-limit the API by saying that using ports (transferables,
actually) obviates the need for extras since this is not necessarily true.

I propose putting both the |extraData| and |transferList| as optional
parameters in one constructor, but have |transferList| as the last
parameter since we definitely envision it being the least-used of the two.

I also propose shortening |extraData| to |extras| to match the Android
Intents API (plus it's shorter/cleaner).

Thanks,
James


>  >
> > interface Intent {} has a typo in getData. "DOMSTring" [sic] should be
> > "DOMString".
>
> Fixing...
>
> > Shouldn't that interface have port MessagePorts[] or otherwise have a
> > getPorts method?
>
> Yes! Thank you. I'd forgotten that.
>
>
> ...
>
> OK, pushing to repo now...
>
> >
> >
> > -Charles
> >
> >
> > On 3/14/2012 12:35 PM, Greg Billock wrote:
> >
> > I've updated the document to reflect a lot of this and also to add the
> > "extraData" and "transferList" arguments we've discussed on list.
> >
> > Thanks for the input! I am excited to see the doc getting better.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Nilsson, Claes1
> >> <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> As a preparation for the Web Intents session in Shenzhen I am reviewing
> >>> the draft Web Intents specification,
> >>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/web-intents/raw-file/tip/spec/Overview.html.
> Some
> >>> initial comments below:
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>