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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

From: John J Barton <johnjbarton@johnjbarton.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:28:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFAtnWy0pGjy4YfsgqnWWMoscb7uBZs+QOVQPX395LKYxKr=Hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>, Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>, James Hawkins <jhawkins@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> There's no difference between two people coming up with the name "foo" and
> two people coming up with the name "http://webintents.org/foo", unless
> you're saying you're confident that people won't use the prefix the spec
> uses for its verbs for their verbs.

I don't think this claim makes sense. As a developer I have no way to
know if 'foo' is used by anyone else on the Internet, but it would be
trivial to check "http://webintents.org/foo".

> But this is a non-problem. In practice, we have plenty of examples of
> spaces where conflicts don't happen despite not having used long names
> such as URLs. For example:
>  - rel="" values in HTML
>  - element names in HTML
>  - MIME type names
>  - scheme names

I believe all of these examples have one or more central name
controls.  The rel example in particular provides a counter example to
using simple uncontrolled verbs:
Multiple naming authorities, layered on wiki, and still messy.

>> A verb on its own will imply that it is a web intents verb managed by
>> the webintents project and all the documentation for that will live
>> under webintents, which means we would then need to think about
>> standardisation and stewardship for the entire namespace.
> I don't see why. Just have a wiki page that people can list their verbs on
> and then point to their documentation.

A wiki is not comparable to the controlled naming systems in the four
examples you give above.  A wiki is a free for all that works great
when there is no money involved. A Web system involving 'share' along
with images, audio, and video will have money involved.

I think the intent names need a controlled namespace, either
centralized like your examples or decentralized as in the original
proposal. URLs need not be the format.  Note the Firefox extension
developers use domain@name format for unique ids.

Received on Sunday, 25 September 2011 17:29:00 UTC

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