W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

From: Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:29:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CADGdg3DfRC0zfvP_0duxh-w+60Lsv2ebeHSggx20WmtGPQLSnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>, public-webapps Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:

> **
> On 11/18/11 1:40 AM, Paul Kinlan wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com> wrote:
>
>>  On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I can tell, the model doesn't prohibit, nor does it encourage,
>>> the passing of MessageChannel.
>>> It's very much made for an RPC style of communication, but if the
>>> message being passed back is a channel, well that's just fine.
>>>
>>> Am I mistaken? What I'm seeing is that we get MessageChannel for free,
>>> and there's no need to specify further.
>>> Individual Intent authors can do that themselves.
>>>
>>
>>
>>  Yes. We envision RPC-style request/response as the sweet spot for
>> intents. We've definitely considered use cases which are better served by
>> opening a persistent
>>
>   On the subject of MessageChannels, my thoughts have been that you don't
> pass the data across it, as you would for say "share" "image/*", but rather
> it is the initiation of a protocol - whose mime-type is yet to be
> determined; something like application/x-protocol-uucp
>
>
> My concern is the plumbing of Transferable.
> Sending Array Buffers across channels is great for short apps.
>
> Here's the webkit meta-bug as they work on postMessage semantics.
> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64629
>
> It's a "transfer" intent. I'm transferring ownership of a buffer or a
> stream.
> It's still appropriate that mime types be specified. Many protocols have
> them.
>
> -Charles
>
>
Sure, you can defiantly pass data across them, what I was referring to (if
I understand your point) is that the MessageChannel is used for protocols
that are more complex that the request/response that webintents has now.
 And to ensure that both client and service are talking the same protocol
then the mime type is for the protocol and not the data going across it.

-- 
Paul Kinlan
Developer Advocate @ Google for Chrome and HTML5
G+: http://plus.ly/paul.kinlan
t: +447730517944
tw: @Paul_Kinlan
LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/paulkinlan
Blog: http://paul.kinlan.me
Skype: paul.kinlan
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 18:30:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:48 GMT