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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:35:23 -0700
Message-ID: <4E7D6C1B.7090307@jumis.com>
To: public-webapps@w3.org
On 9/23/11 2:47 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>  wrote:
>> Namespace names are things I copy from templates and never type from memory.
> Exactly, which means namespaces aren't memorable.  The only reason to
> give up memorability is if you require the name to be both
> collision-free and context-free (see Zooko's Triangle).  Both of those
> are nice (as they always are), but they're not really required for a
> workable namespace.  Giving up memorability for no real benefit is a
> loss all around.
> In the specific case of intents, the same applies.  We don't need them
> to be securely collision-free (collisions are slightly annoying for
> the user, but should be fairly rare in practice, and can be resolved
> by the user without a lot of trouble).  They should be context-free,
> as they apply across the whole web.  And they should be memorable,
> because authors have to type these and they get non-memorable things
> wrong.
> ~TJ
The search engine coalition that pushed out  a set of micro-format 
vocabulary weighed toward using urls
for "itemtype" in microformat:


Given that indexing was put forward as the case for the <intent> tag, 
how would that look in current microdata semantics?

This is on webintents.org:

Would it look something like this, in microdata:
<meta itemscope
Received on Saturday, 24 September 2011 05:35:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:35 UTC