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

RE: Proposal for "default services" parameter in IntentParameters dictionary

From: Deepanshu Gautam <deepanshu.gautam@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 00:49:26 +0000
To: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
Cc: James Hawkins <jhawkins@chromium.org>, Josh Soref <jsoref@rim.com>, "public-web-intents@w3.org" <public-web-intents@w3.org>
Message-id: <DA22857AC9F15C469BB47FE88C02012940F9EEFE@SZXEML510-MBX.china.huawei.com>


Deepanshu Gautam
Senior Engineer, Service Standards, Huawei
O: +86 25 56620008 M: +8613585147627


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Billock [mailto:gbillock@google.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 11:02 PM
> To: Deepanshu Gautam
> Cc: James Hawkins; Josh Soref; public-web-intents@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal for "default services" parameter in IntentParameters
> dictionary
> 
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Deepanshu Gautam
> <deepanshu.gautam@huawei.com> wrote:
> > Inline...
> >
> > Deepanshu Gautam
> > Senior Engineer, Service Standards, Huawei
> > O: +86 25 56620008 M: +8613585147627
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Greg Billock [mailto:gbillock@google.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 1:11 AM
> >> To: Deepanshu Gautam
> >> Cc: James Hawkins; Josh Soref; public-web-intents@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: Proposal for "default services" parameter in IntentParameters
> >> dictionary
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Deepanshu Gautam
> >> <deepanshu.gautam@huawei.com> wrote:
> >> > Some question on the latest draft.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Section 4.3 says "The User Agent should ignore the suggested services
> from
> >> > the intent invocation if the user already has a handler selected." The
> last
> >> > time I heard about this
> >> > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-
> intents/2012Apr/0085.html),
> >> > it was decided to user "MAY" here. Has it been changed? Why?
> >>
> >> The "MAY" there was about the registration of suggested services.
> >>
> >> I'm open to changes in this wording. If you think it ought to be one
> >> way or another.
> >
> > [DG] If the assumption is: "not to show the Suggestion unless the picker is
> empty" then this statement is wrong. As I said, the user may not have selected
> the handler just yet (bcz this is the first time), but the matching services
> exists and should be listed in the picker. So, I suggest to delete the entire
> statement or change it to MAY at least.
> 
> I'm confused here. There are two sentences (which perhaps should be in
> different paragraphs) about two different pieces of behavior:
> 
> "The User Agent should ignore the suggested services from the intent
> invocation if the user already has a handler selected."
> 
> and
> 
> "The User Agent may ask the user if they wish to install all or any of
> the suggested services, just as for any other visit of those pages."
> 
> Could you rewrite them the way you think they ought to be so I can see
> the difference?
[DG] My comment is only about the first sentence and I suggest to delete (using MAY will be worse) it completely bcz it is confusing things up.
> 
> 
> >
> >>
> >> > Section 4.3 says "The User Agent must follow the matching algorithm of
> the
> >> > "Matching action and type for delivery" section before delivering the
> Intent
> >> > to a suggested service, just as for any Intent delivery." Why this is
> >> > needed? Isn't that the "suggestions" are provided in the picker only
> after
> >> > matching Action and Type (section 3.3 Invocation API)? Why Action and
> Type
> >> > have to matched again at Delivery? I think this applies to Intent in
> >> > general. Am I missing something?
> >>
> >> The UA or client's data may be stale. The final authority is the page
> >> as loaded at delivery time, which the UA must respect.
> >
> > [DG] So, suppose it (matching fails at delivery) happens once for service
> ABC. Will that service be still listed for that particular action in future?
> Do we have to somehow spec the UA behavior in this case?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > At last, I asked this before also
> >> > "http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-
> intents/2012Apr/0085.html"
> >> > and here it goes again.
> >> >
> >> > Can the functionality of "Suggestion" be achieved by extending "explicit
> >> > intent" to have one or more values? If there is only one value (which
> will
> >> > also mean that there is only one recommendation) then it will become
> >> > "explicit Intent " i.e UA can load the service directly. If there are
> more
> >> > than one values (or recommendations) then it will become "Suggestion" i.e
> UA
> >> > may allow user to select from them. I think it makes sense to merge
> >> > "explicit" and "suggestion" functionalities.
> >>
> >> I also had this intuition that there's a way to think about them in
> >> the same way, but I'm convinced by earlier discussion that that's
> >> confusing.  "explicit" has very different semantics from
> >> "suggestions". Having one field with two semantics is confusing. (How
> >> would you give only one suggestion?) It's better to have separate
> >> fields for these two use cases. (Suggestions don't even make sense for
> >> explicit intents.)
> >>
> >> Even if we decided "explicit" wasn't a MUST for the UA, they still
> >> would mean something quite different.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Deepanshu Gautam
> >> >
> >> > Senior Engineer, Service Standards, Huawei
> >> >
> >> > O: +86 25 56620008 M: +8613585147627
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > From: jhawkins@google.com [mailto:jhawkins@google.com] On Behalf Of James
> >> > Hawkins
> >> > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:33 AM
> >> > To: Greg Billock
> >> > Cc: Josh Soref; public-web-intents@w3.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Subject: Re: Proposal for "default services" parameter in
> IntentParameters
> >> > dictionary
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > In an attempt to make this aspect of the feature more trustworthy, we
> should
> >> > modify the language to be a bit more explicit about requirements:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > * MUST display a suggestion if the picker is otherwise empty.
> >> >
> >> > * SHOULD display the suggestion anyway.
> >> >
> >> > * MAY limit the number of suggestions shown
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > James
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I think 'suggestions' will work the best from this list. I'm going to
> >> > go ahead and add it with that name.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:39 PM, James Hawkins <jhawkins@chromium.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Josh Soref <jsoref@rim.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Greg wrote:
> >> >>> >  sequence<URL> defaults;
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > Some questions.
> >> >>> > First off, I don't like "defaults".
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Me neither
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > I think it makes
> >> >>> > it sound like a more permanent default setting, which we want to
> >> >>> > reserve for something arranged by the user and the UA.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Right
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > I prefer
> >> >>> > "recommendations".
> >> >>> > Does that sound good? "recommendedServices"? Any
> >> >>> better ideas?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> suggested
> >> >>> known
> >> >>> available
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> suggestions
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 00:50:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 May 2012 00:50:13 GMT