Re: Web Wishes

It seems that when you use the Photoshop example you're asking for something like a custom URL protocol that is an OS level hook. Which I think I can like. 

wish.src === adobe://photoshop?mode=edit&file=lolcats.jpg

However that seems like a massive leap forward and well beyond the "web". 

Am I misunderstanding your idea in this way?




On Jul 1, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:

> On 01/07/2013 14:50 , François REMY wrote:
>>> In other words, let people innovate in apps in small chunks, rather
>>> than require someone take over a large project (or even find unlikely
>>> extension points in an existing one). It's not just the technology
>>> that should be extensible.
>> 
>> Okay, this is quite interesting. I didn't see it in that way.
>> 
>> I think this is not the exact same thing as web intents, which I really
>> see as a way to launch a new app, but in fact a way to create a GAC
>> (global assembly catalog) of Web Components with a standardized set of
>> interaction contracts among them so that apps can simply rely on
>> existings components instead of shipping their own. In a sense, it looks
>> a lot like COM/ActiveX for web. This is indeed very innovative and
>> interesting, and I can clearly see how this can fit in the spectrum of
>> this CG.
> 
> No offence François, I really look forward to having a beer with you one of these days and all, but...
> 
> Bleeeuharghhhhh!
> 
> I don't think we want to have a WebGAC of WebCOM. I just want URLs corresponding to a service that can be discovered and then messaged with.
> 
> Yes, I realise that that's a *lot* like a high-level description of COM (or any variants). But the details can, IMHO, be an awful lot simpler. And starting from a simplified form of Intents (which on Android are meant to enable composable apps, at least up to a point) is IMHO more conducive to something implementable and usable than to even think about COM.
> 
> But maybe there's a simple side of COM that I have yet to discover :)
> 
>> The difficulty here is probably not so much defining the meta API
>> (Wish/Intent/...) that handles the communication between the components,
>> but probably the specific contracts because those contracts are really
>> dependent on the specifics of the interaction expected from the web
>> component. Even a text editor would probably surface rather complex
>> contract with things like selection capabilities, getting the text back,
>> context menu actions, tooltips...
> 
> Yes. And let a thousand grassroot standards bloom. I reckon this has something to do with what we're about :)
> 
> -- 
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>

Received on Monday, 1 July 2013 13:50:54 UTC