W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

From: James Hawkins <jhawkins@google.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:42:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAO800Sxns+gVXRTCnhOKCSLZTCWE1MBKN0bJYeG_Vbz=TgkUQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: ifette@google.com, public-webapps@w3.org
Hi Robin,

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> Hi Ian!
>
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 16:26 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> > I don't get it. The overhead of getting all the other browsers to join
> the WG you mention is just as high
>
> Can you please detail what overhead that involves? There are only two cases
> here:
>
>    * You have IP concerns relevant to Web Intents. In that case you need IP
> portfolio review. That overhead is the same for joining and for rechartering
> an existing group (it's just politically higher in the rechartering case).
>    * You don't have IP concerns relevant to Web Intents. In that case you
> just join the group ― zero overhead.
>
> It's a simple solution that just involves clicking through a form. If you
> have a political mexican standoff of vendors not joining while the others
> aren't, it can hardly be blamed on the process, DAP, WebApps, W3C, or
> whatever else. I'm sure that it can be sorted out, though.
>
> Intents were initially added to DAP's charter in good part because Google
> asked us to. It's a little annoying to be blamed for doing exactly what you
> were asked to do.
>
>
I'm the TL of the Intents team at Google, but this is a large company and
I've only been involved with the larger Open Web Platform team for ~6
months.  I'm not familiar with the details surrounding Google asking DAP to
add Intents to the charter.  Can you fill me in on the details?

To clarify on my end, the current draft of the Web Intents API is entering a
cluttered namespace; there are several proposals with similar names/ideas
that are not directly tied to this API:
* Web Introducer/Web-send (Tyler Close, published early 2010)
* Web Intents (Paul Kinlan, published in Nov 2010)

If my hunch is right, you're referring to Tyler's Introducer proposal; note
that while Tyler does work at Google, his work on Introducer was not tied to
the Chrome team.  The Web Intents proposal of this thread has the backing of
the Chrome team which has agreed that Intents is the way to move forward in
this problem space.

Thanks,
James
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 18:42:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT