- From: Norifumi Kikkawa <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:22:41 +0900
- To: Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>
- Cc: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>, WebIntents <public-web-intents@w3.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "jungkee.song@samsung.com" <jungkee.song@samsung.com>, "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Hi, thank you for your comments, Greg and Paul. I like Paul's idea. Consistency with android intent must help developers. Kikkawa On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 03:07:05 +0900 Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com> wrote: > The other option is following what andoird has done and differentiate at the action level, that is they have send and send_multiple, this then leaves up to each actions specification to say how the data interchange occurs. > > On 19 Sep 2012 18:38, "Greg Billock" <gbillock@google.com<mailto:gbillock@google.com>> wrote: > I don't like using "multiple" as a field on the intent object. It > doesn't always make sense, and seems like something that ought to be > treated at the interchange data format layer. > > The more I consider this, the more I like using the 'type' parameter > to communicate this. So something like "[]image/*" or "[image/*]" or > "multipart/mixed;type=image/*" to indicate that the service can > provide multiple object support, or that client is expecting it. > That's nicely explicit, builds on the single-value case, and will work > for all the use cases we know of. > > From a purely technical standpoint, I think using multipart/... is > correct. Is it too unwieldy though? > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Norifumi Kikkawa > <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com<mailto:Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > > >> > It sounds like we are saying here that a 'profile' may require an array where it makes sense (e.g. Pick Contacts) and otherwise it can be either an array or single, requiring checking; though it might be simpler to always require returning an array. > > > > A more explicit way (like specifying "multiple") is sometimes useful in > > a Pick-Media type use case even if an array is available for intent. > > > > Note that my point here is multiple contents in the post result data > > retruned in the IntentSuccessCallback and NOT multiple contents > > in data of Intent object. > > > > Please assume a service just wants a single image to edit. If it can > > tell "just one image is enough" at the startActivity time, the invoked > > service which supports "Pick-Media" web intents can arrange its intent > > page for a user to select only a single image - disabling multiple > > selection for example. > > > > I believe this is not a Pick-Media specific requirement. Therefore the > > WebIntents spec should have a way for a service to allow/prohibit > > multiple post result contents like below; > > > > interface Intent { > > readonly attribute DOMString action; > > readonly attribute DOMString type; > > readonly attribute any data; > > readpnly attribute Boolean multiplePostResults; > > // true if multiple result is allowed. > > readonly attribute MessagePort[] ports; > > void postResult (any data, optional sequence<Transferable> transferable); > > void postFailure (any data); > > }; > > > > This requirement is not applicable for intent actions which don't use a > > post result. > > > > Don't you think this is useful? > > > > Thanks, > > Kikkawa > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 03:16:55 +0900 > > Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com<mailto:gbillock@google.com>> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:04 AM, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com<mailto:Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>> wrote: > >> > It sounds like we are saying here that a 'profile' may require an array where it makes sense (e.g. Pick Contacts) and otherwise it can be either an array or single, requiring checking; though it might be simpler to always require returning an array. > >> > > >> > To make sense of information an agreement is needed so we can expect a 'profile' like Pick Contacts etc, to specify that an array is returned, if this is not the mandatory default. > >> > > >> > What is the downside of using a Javascript array? Seems straightforward and simple... > >> > >> No downside -- that's what I prefer. The only thing I worry about is > >> if it is enough of a gotcha for simple cases (single values) that we > >> should do either something more explicit (like "multiple") or also > >> recommend handling a single object as { ... } instead of [ { ... } ]. > >> Both are accommodations, and so are disappointing, but if they end up > >> making the API simpler to work with for most cases, I see the case for > >> making them. > >> > >> > > >> > regards, Frederick > >> > > >> > Frederick Hirsch > >> > Nokia > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sep 12, 2012, at 2:09 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote: > >> > > >> >>> From: Greg Billock [mailto:gbillock@google.com<mailto:gbillock@google.com>] > >> >>> Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 12:23 AM > >> >>> > >> >>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com<mailto:jungkee.song@samsung.com>> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>>> Hi Greg, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I propose we introduce *collection* [1]. FileList object in File API [2] > >> >>>> already shows *collection* is quite handy to deliver and access list of > >> >>>> objects. > >> >>> > >> >>> We already have in the spec that |data| is an arbitrary structured > >> >>> clone, which can be a collection. A perfectly valid solution is to > >> >>> just always have return types be collections, so in response to a pick > >> >>> intent you'd get: > >> >>> > >> >>> [ { "url": "the url", "filename": "filename" } ] > >> >> > >> >> Yes. In the schema level, client and service can have an agreement that they > >> >> will exchange data in collection type always. To make it explicit, we can > >> >> specify the requirement for data exchange type in related documents. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> JS already has the right tools to handle data objects like this. In > >> >>> that world, there's no need for "multiple" -- the payload is always > >> >>> potentially multiple. It is a bit error prone in the sense that for > >> >>> one object you have to return "[obj]" instead of just "obj". > >> >> > >> >> I think for the services that essentially assume multiple-object delivery > >> >> (e.g., Pick Contacts/Media Intent), it is even better for developers to > >> >> always expect the result as collection type even for a single object case > >> >> like [obj]; otherwise, developers always have to check the type (like the > >> >> code example below) as Intents are loosely-coupled and being developed > >> >> independently. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>> One solution would be to allow both: > >> >>> > >> >>> function intentResult(data) { > >> >>> if (data instanceof Array) { > >> >>> handleResult(data[0]); > >> >>> // obviously not fully general, but you get the idea > >> >>> } else { > >> >>> handleResult(data); > >> >>> } > >> >>> } > >> >>> > >> >>> I prefer using existing machinery rather than inventing a new class to > >> >>> solve this problem. I'm pretty sure that having used structured clone, > >> >>> we have enough latitude to solve this problem at the schema level, and > >> >>> not need any new API complexity. > >> >> > >> >> Yes, I agree. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>>> --Web IDL > >> >>>> [ArrayClass] > >> >>>> interface ObjectList { > >> >>>> getter Object? item(unsigned long index); > >> >>>> readonly attribute unsigned long length; > >> >>>> }; > >> >>>> > >> >>>> --ECMAScript (Client) > >> >>>> var mimeObjects = getImageDataBlobList(...); // return collection of > >> >>>> MimeTypeIntentData > >> >>>> var intent = new Intent({ > >> >>>> action: "http://intents.w3.org/pick", > >> >>>> type: "image/png", > >> >>>> data: objects > >> >>>> }); > >> >>>> > >> >>>> navigator.startActivity(intent); > >> >>>> > >> >>>> --WebIDL (Service) > >> >>>> partial interface Intent { > >> >>>> readonly attribute Object objectList; > >> >>>> }; > >> >>>> > >> >>>> --ECMAScript (Service) > >> >>>> window.intent.objectList.item(0); > >> >>>> or > >> >>>> window.intent.objectList[0] > >> >>>> > >> >>>> both are valid syntax. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> This can be used for Pick Media Intent and Pick Contacts Intent to > >> >>> deliver > >> >>>> array of Media objects and array of Contact objects, respectively as > >> >>> well. > >> >>>> i.e., I think it covers generic use cases in delivering list of > >> >>> *objects*. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/domcore/#collections > >> >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/FileAPI/#dfn-filelist > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Jungkee > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >> >>>>> From: Greg Billock [mailto:gbillock@google.com<mailto:gbillock@google.com>] > >> >>>>> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 2:39 AM > >> >>>>> To: Norifumi Kikkawa > >> >>>>> Cc: Paul Kinlan; public-web-intents@w3.org<mailto:public-web-intents@w3.org> > >> >>>>> Subject: Re: Content of URL picked by Intent > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The previous thinking on formatting intent payloads for MIME is here: > >> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebIntents/MIME_Types > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> This has two flaws which we need to fix. First is that it relies on > >> >>>>> |extras| which we don't want to do. The second is that we need to > >> >>>>> figure out how to pass multiple data through, for which I think we'll > >> >>>>> use the "multiple: true" key. There are a few options here, but what I > >> >>>>> am advocating for is that data payloads for MIME types are always > >> >>>>> javascript objects, and that there is a consistent namespace of keys > >> >>>>> across all types. Proposal: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> dictionary MimeTypeIntentData { > >> >>>>> URL url; > >> >>>>> Blob blob; > >> >>>>> DOMString text; > >> >>>>> DOMString filename; > >> >>>>> boolean multiple; > >> >>>>> } > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> This plan needs some help when multiple is true. The fields could > >> >>>>> become sequence<URL>, sequence<Blob>, etc., but that's distasteful. > >> >>>>> Any better ideas for how to handle that? > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> We will almost certainly end up with other keys in this schema for > >> >>>>> MIME types (for example, I've suggested using "errorName" and > >> >>>>> "errorMessage" for keys in error objects to parallel the JS Error type > >> >>>>> fields while trying to keep them separate from potential fields in > >> >>>>> non-error payloads). We've talked about passing 'origin' in some > >> >>>>> situations, and it may come to pass that 'origin' ends up being a > >> >>>>> voluntary payload field for some interchange types. You can imagine > >> >>>>> wanting to attach a "Content-Type" field, especially for something > >> >>>>> like {action: "pick", type: "image/*"} where the service can return > >> >>>>> the exact type of the attached image. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Thanks for pushing on this. This is a critical discussion, as we > >> >>>>> recognized early on, and I'm glad that we're far enough on to be > >> >>>>> tackling it directly. :-) > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> -Greg > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Norifumi Kikkawa > >> >>>>> <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com<mailto:Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com>> wrote: > >> >>>>>> Hi Paul, Thank you for your comment. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Yes, for sharing purpose, the content of URL doesn't matter in many > >> >>>>> cases. > >> >>>>>> I'm thinking of "view" intent, which will enable a service to play > >> >>> its > >> >>>>>> introduced movie on a TV with the local discovery addendum. > >> >>>>>> In different from the image use case, maybe the view intent should > >> >>> pass > >> >>>>> url > >> >>>>>> to the movie rather than its binary file. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Assuming the TV can play MP4 but WebM. I'd like to see a user agent > >> >>>>>> filters out incompatible TV from its picker list based on target > >> >>> movie. > >> >>>>>> For example, to play WebM content, the TV above should not be shown > >> >>> even > >> >>>>>> if it supports 'view' action (, or shown with "can't play" message). > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Given have just removed extras, the data attribute in the intent > >> >>> object > >> >>>>> will need to carry extra data, so I will share a link to a document > >> >>> that > >> >>>>> describes how the payload should appear exactly for then share intent > >> >>>>> across multiple data types. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Yes. With keeping the type attribute as "video/mp4" to simplify user > >> >>>>>> agent's work for filtering pickers, some other way should tell how to > >> >>>>>> specify the content. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> In the Data Formats section of http://webintents.org/pick, Brob, Data > >> >>>>>> URI and their list are assumed and may be distincted implicitly. Just > >> >>>>>> adding 'referece URI(?)' here without adding any data attribute is > >> >>>>>> minimum option. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Anyway, at first, I'd like to know whether such usage of url in web > >> >>>>>> intents is possible or not since I have never seen it. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Thanks, > >> >>>>>> Kikkawa > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 19:12:35 +0900 > >> >>>>>> Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com<mailto:paulkinlan@google.com>> wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Hi, > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Text/uri-list is for sharing URLs, it doesn't care what the content > >> >>> is > >> >>>>> behind that URL. Think of a button that is in the browser that just > >> >>> says > >> >>>>> share the URL in then address bar. It could be a page, movie or PDF > >> >>> file. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> To be very explicit abut sharing a movie file your data type would > >> >>> be > >> >>>>> video/mpeg for example. Then a URL that is passed in would be a > >> >>> pointer > >> >>>>> to a video file. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Given have just removed extras, the data attribute in the intent > >> >>> object > >> >>>>> will need to carry extra data, so I will share a link to a document > >> >>> that > >> >>>>> describes how the payload should appear exactly for then share intent > >> >>>>> across multiple data types. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> P > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> On 5 Sep 2012 01:22, "Norifumi Kikkawa" > >> >>>>> <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com<mailto:Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com><mailto:Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com<mailto:Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com>>> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> Hi all, > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> I found that some media related intents actions can handle not only > >> >>>>>>> binary content but also url list. For example, > >> >>>>>>> http://webintents.org/share, http://webintents.org/pick assume the > >> >>>>>>> text/url type. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Although I believe this is also useful in case of a single big > >> >>> content > >> >>>>> (e.g. > >> >>>>>>> movie), I concern that the "text/url" type seems not enough > >> >>>>>>> to determine the capability/requirement of services. How can the > >> >>> intent > >> >>>>>>> registration tag say "I can provide a url for movie, but for contact > >> >>>>>>> info"? How to pick a movie by url? > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> My question is : > >> >>>>>>> 1. Can a URL be used for such porpose in web intents? > >> >>>>>>> 2. Does it make sense to add some mechanism to expose more detail > >> >>>>>>> info in "text/url" case? > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> A URL may reveal its origin, but this is another issue... > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Thanks, > >> >>>>>>> Kikkawa > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------- > >> >>>>>>> Norifumi Kikkawa > >> >>>>> <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com<mailto:Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com><mailto:Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com<mailto:Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com>>> > >> >>>>>>> Section 1 > >> >>>>>>> Network Technology Dept. > >> >>>>>>> Information Technology Development Division > >> >>>>>>> System & Software Technology Platfotm > >> >>>>>>> Sony Corporation > >> >>>>>>> (TEL) +81 50 3750 3953<tel:%2B81%2050%203750%203953><tel:%2B81%2050%203750%203953> > >> >>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------- > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------- > >> >>>>>> Norifumi Kikkawa <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com<mailto:Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com>> > >> >>>>>> Section 1 > >> >>>>>> Network Technology Dept. > >> >>>>>> Information Technology Development Division > >> >>>>>> System & Software Technology Platfotm > >> >>>>>> Sony Corporation > >> >>>>>> (TEL) +81 50 3750 3953<tel:%2B81%2050%203750%203953> > >> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------- > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------- > > Norifumi Kikkawa <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com<mailto:Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com>> > > Section 1 > > Network Technology Dept. > > Information Technology Development Division > > System & Software Technology Platfotm > > Sony Corporation > > (TEL) +81 50 3750 3953<tel:%2B81%2050%203750%203953> > > ----------------------------------------------- > > --------------------------------------------- Norifumi Kikkawa <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com> Section 1 Network Technology Dept. Information Technology Development Division System & Software Technology Platfotm Sony Corporation (TEL) +81 50 3750 3953 -----------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 05:23:16 UTC