Re: Blog post for review

Guys.   Can we spawn a new thread :)
On Jun 12, 2013 12:09 PM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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).
>
>
>