Re: Proposal for incorporating explicit intent invocation into the object literal constructor

On 4/5/2012 3:10 PM, Greg Billock wrote:
> The expected User Agent behavior is that if this "service" attribute
> is present, the picker SHOULD NOT be displayed (although the User
> Agent is not prohibited from providing the user a way to reroute such
> calls, even though they are marked explicit). Instead, the service url
> SHOULD be loaded directly to handle the intent.
>
> The User Agent MAY ask the user if they wish to install this service,
> just like for any other visit of the page, but SHOULD NOT do so
> automatically.
>
> --------------
> Another question: I'd pondered putting "MUST NOT" instead of "SHOULD
> NOT" in the last sentence about automatic installation. I'm worried
> that this might be a super-cookie, so I think it is probably a bad
> idea, but on the other hand, I don't want to restrict user agents too
> much, as automatic installation may be a really good UI strategy.

All Intents may encounter this issue: an Intent may open up a webpage 
that contains additional intent registrations.
Explicit intents are not necessarily "installed"; they're just kept 
around while the caller is active.

We ought to distance "installation" from explicit invocation.

What's the concern about super-cookie exploits? Explicit invocation 
seems like it'd just rely on applicationCache for speed.

It's possible that a UA will prompt a user when launching an Intent 
anyway: UAs like FF have prompted users to accept applicationCache 
and/or local storage.

-Charles

Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 22:25:51 UTC