Re: Blog post for review

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 at 4:54 PM, François REMY wrote:

> > Low-level stuff is hard to polyfill for general usage, but you can still
> > polyfill it as a way to figure out how it needs to work. I don't believe
> > any of this has been released, but I've seen several people provide APIs
> > to low-level stuff by polyfilling the API and talking to a localhost
> > Node service that actually carries out the action. Definitely imperfect
> > and certainly not practical for deployed usage, but still valuable.
>  
>  
>  
> Yes, I kinda like this approach. The other option is to fallback on plugins like Flash/Silverlight/ActiveX but it restricts your possibilities very quickly. The external server approach is nicer, especially now that browsers support CORS.
Of course, this assumes that the functionality you want is asyc and that you can live with the latency.    
> > One brick that I would consider important in this is Web Intents (or
> > whatever evolution thereof). It makes it possible to connect an
> > arbitrary user-selected service to an application. It is useful in this
> > context because a number of platform services can also be exposed as
> > remote services. To take an example, an API to interact with a user's
> > contacts could use an online service just as well as one provided by the
> > browser to the local address book. This makes it possible to introduce
> > services without browser support, but that can be enhanced by it when it
> > comes.
> >  
> > I'd like to rekindle the work that was done in that area but in an as
> > trimmed-down as possible manner, possibly that can be (partially)
> > polyfilled. I'm happy to discuss it here if ever there's interest.
>  
> This is certainly of interest. I wonder if the API could not be improved now that Futures are part of the platform.  

I don't think it was an API issue… more of a UX issue for users (at least, that's the word on the street).

Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 16:09:23 UTC