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

On 4/10/2012 6:23 PM, Greg Billock wrote:
> Submitted a new version of the spec with mercurial, incorporating
> these changes, the object literal, and some other syntactic
> adjustments suggested by Josh and Ian Hickson.
>
> I've left the existing Intent constructor in for now, as it didn't
> sound like we had enough discussion to remove it. Any other opinions?
>
> -Greg
>

You've got some conversion errors:

3.1.1. <> have been over-serialized.
3.2.1. the link to postmsg was not converted into html.

...

I've got a new concern with event de-registration.
This may be a non-issue; something similar comes up with Application Cache.

What happens when a hotel WiFi or other untrusted AP decides to do 
content injection,
possibly redirecting the target page to a "Sign in or pay me now!" 
webpage, or other redirect/404 error?

Again, it may be a non-issue... I'm starting to think that Application 
Cache will only ever work [well] on "https" sites.
Seems more and more like https is going to have to be standard fare for 
tightly integrated web services.


Congratulations on getting this spec through; looks like we all gained 
an extras dictionary and transferables. I like that.
I'm happy having two invocation mechanisms (dictionary and arguments), 
but I won't push back hard if we lose one.
I like having both.

-Charles

Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 01:38:52 UTC