Re: Some comments and questions on Web Intents draft

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Cathy!
>
> (Also thanks to everyone else who is looking carefully at the spec!)
>
> I am going to make a bunch of changes following all this feedback
> hopefully later this week.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:25 PM, <Cathy.Chan@nokia.com> wrote:
>
>> A few comments and questions after taking another look at the draft:
>>
>> 2.2 Life cycle of Intents and Services
>> [[Registration is how a Service page informs the User Agent that it is
>> capable of handling Intents.]]
>> Technically, any page, not necessarily a service page, can include
>> registration markups (for other same-origin service pages). It would be
>> more
>> accurate to say:
>> Registration is how a web page informs the User Agent that it or another
>> same-origin Service page is capable of handling Intents.
>> (Obviously this can use some wordsmithing...)
>>
>> 3.5 Registration Markup
>> [[Service pages declaratively mark themselves (or other same-origin pages)
>> as providing handling functionality for particular intent actions and
>> types
>> using the <intent> tag.]]
>> Same argument as above. Maybe s/Service pages/Web pages/ ?
>>
>> 3.5.1  under Unregistering
>> [[Such explicit unregistration should be honored for any tag with a
>> same-origin href attribute.]]
>> [[The intent tags on the service handler page itself should be interpreted
>> by the User Agent as authoritative.]]
>> What happens if a service handler page includes an intent tag, but another
>> same-origin page erroneously includes a tag to unregister that service
>> page?
>> Should the UA be required to check the service handler page if a
>> same-origin
>> page attempts to unregister the intent to ensure that the service handler
>> page is authoritative? Contrast this with the scenario where a page
>> erroneously includes a tag to register a same-origin page for an intent.
>> The
>> UA is required to check the service handler page upon invocation, ensuring
>> that the service handler page is authoritative. I'm arguing for symmetry
>> here - given that there is provision to ensure that at a page that
>> erroneously registers an intent for another page will be caught, there
>> should be provision to ensure that a page that erroneously unregisters for
>> another page will be caught as well.
>>
>
I made all the changes you suggested. I don't think we should make this a
MUST requirement, though -- while the service page itself is the final
authority, and it is true that we end up allowing the possibility of being
mislead by inconsistent information on the site, I think we should keep it
as is. The reason is we don't want to compel a lot of fetching and parsing
to verify the registration. When we deliver the intent, of course, that's a
crucial commitment, but then we have the page right there and it has to be
parsed anyway.



>
>> Typos:
>> 4.2 Steps 9 and 10: s/action type/intent type/ (multiple occurrences)
>> 4.2 Step 9: s/continue fo/continue to/
>>
>> Regards, Cathy.
>>
>>
>