W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Google Maps URL Scheme

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:37:47 +0100
Message-ID: <50CEF5FB.8070809@w3.org>
To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
CC: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 14/12/2012 23:46 , Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 11:37 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> No, a media type is just as bad, only one step removed. If the
>> implementation is in HTML (as it's likely and getting likelier to be)
>> then
>> all you've done is pushed the masquerading to another layer.
>
> I'm not convinced. Media types and schemes affect different parts of the
> space. Schemes show up directly in the names that are used for linking,
> and they require hooks in the corresponding dispatch tables. When you
> use a scheme other than http, you cannot change your mind about the
> formats or protocols to be used without changing all the URIs and links.
> With http, you can have a link to a portion of a map (to use the example
> we're talking about), and have it come back as an interactive
> application sometimes, and a gif others. My impression is that Google
> Maps does exactly this in supporting small devices with non-JavaScript
> browsers.

Sure, but by piggy-backing on media types instead what you get in the 
above case is someone using text/vnd.whoever.html or 
image/vnd.whoever.gif instead of the real content types. While the 
precise problems you've created with either approach are different, I 
don't think that one can easily be shown to be less problematic than the 
other. They're both kludges that attempt to dispatch correctly based on 
the wrong extension mechanism.

Architecturally, what you want here is for sender and receiver not to 
have to be tied to the same mapping service (maybe you're using a 
desktop device and OS on which yours works great but it really fails on 
my mobile with a different system). The exchange that's taking place is 
"view a position on a map". Both parties should be able to use different 
mapping solutions for the same content. For that, you want something 
that has the architectural properties of intents.

In order to be linkable, that might require an "intent:" scheme 
capturing the intent's content, but that's a relatively simple addition 
once you have the basics of the intentional architecture nailed.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 17 December 2012 10:38:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 December 2012 10:38:25 GMT