- From: Mike Kelly <mikekelly321@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:54:30 +0000
- To: James Hawkins <jhawkins@chromium.org>
- Cc: public-web-intents@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CANqiZJZMzyKORyn2QR1YCWyaAeMp53DuEpmSgxsOM-X-K-BnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM, James Hawkins <jhawkins@chromium.org>wrote: > There are a few drawbacks with using the link element. > * link must appear in the head and is a void element. > - This prevents the use case of the service site providing alternative > UI if <intent> is not supported: <intent ...>Intents are not supported! > Check out this work-around</intent> > Both of these issues are worth exploring with html5 working group, more than happy to get involved on this. > * In the current syntax you provided, how would the UA know this is an > intent registration? Per the spec, |action| is just a string; we use URLs > to set precedence as a developer-friendly way of documenting the action. > Presumably UAs only react to the @action tokens they understand? Using link will provide them with a slightly larger set of elements to go through to find these, which should not present an issue - am I missing something here? > * We'd have to change the HTML parsing algorithm. > > I'm not au fait with the implementation here, is this a significant undertaking? > Can you share your objections to using the <intent> element? > It is, ostensibly, a link.. so why not expose it as one? There is a lot of existing web infrastructure that is already geared up to work with links. e.g. atom has a link element, we have the Link header in HTTP, and links and relations are already familiar to developers. Linking is a very 'web' thing, so re-using <link> would make web intents 'fit in' better with the rest of the web. Cheers, Mike > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Mike Kelly <mikekelly321@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi Paul, >> >> Ok thanks, that being the case, what is the difference between <link> vs >> <intent> and @rel vs @action in the following example: >> >> <intent action="http://webintents.org/subscribe" type=".." href=".." /> >> >> <link rel="http://webintents.org/subscribe" type=".." href=".." /> >> >> So, is it possible for web intents to simply re-use the existing, >> ubiquitous <link> instead of having to introduce <intent>? >> >> Cheers, >> Mike >> >> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This was something that I started to document under >>> http://webintents.org/subscribe - the intents discovery mechanism in >>> the spec doesn't preculde a UA from detecting this and allowing the user to >>> invoke an action to subscribe to the feed using their preferred application. >>> >>> P >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Mike Kelly <mikekelly321@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I was wondering whether an example of 'web intent' behaviour has >>>> already existed for some time: >>>> >>>> The example I am thinking of is driven by atom/rss links in the head >>>> of HTML pages, i.e. an html page containing the following link in the >>>> head of the document.. >>>> >>>> <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" href="...." /> >>>> >>>> .... this causes a browser (e.g. Firefox) to present the user with the >>>> >>>> option to 'Subscribe to This Page' where the user can fulfil their >>>> 'subscription intent'. >>>> >>>> Would this be considered an equivalent of a web intent? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Paul Kinlan >>> Developer Advocate @ Google for Chrome and HTML5 >>> G+: http://plus.ly/paul.kinlan >>> t: +447730517944 >>> tw: @Paul_Kinlan >>> LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/paulkinlan >>> Blog: http://paul.kinlan.me >>> Skype: paul.kinlan >>> >>> >> >
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 16:55:03 UTC