- From: James Hawkins <jhawkins@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:33:29 -0700
- To: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
- Cc: "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com>, "public-web-intents@w3.org" <public-web-intents@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAO800SzghAr9Jt6e_NBZkSCM6dXM=h3+-1Nn4=awdyM8mcAmzw@mail.gmail.com>
Claes, can you clarify the intent of your message? I read this as a call to document the process by which DAP (or other WGs) create new APIs based on Web Intents, e.g. Contacts API. I think Paul and Greg are reading this as a call to have a formal process to standardize the Web Intents 'APIs', i.e. the standard actions provided by webintents.org. Thanks, James On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com> wrote: > This is a critical area, I agree. I've begun work on that in the web > intents wiki, under the "Documentation for Web Intents Actions and Types" > heading (see [1] and [2]). > > [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebIntents/MIME_Types > [2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebIntents/schema.org_Types > > What I'd like to see is careful thought applied to the messaging formats, > especially for MIME types. I think that literal types will end up being > easier to define -- after all, you can just say exactly what all the fields > are, what to expect, which are required and which optional, etc. MIME types > are much better for interoperability, as they are generic, but that means > they'll end up needing to be more generically defined. > > Here's the state of my thinking on the issue right now. For passing data > into the service, Blobs work great for binary data and plain text for > textual types. There are extras to carry along any metadata required by the > particular action that isn't contained in the raw content itself. > > Return types are harder. > > It'd be really nice to specify Blobs for binary MIME types and raw text > content for text MIME types as return values. There are a couple of thorny > problems with that at present, however. Blobs aren't transferable, and so > are not supported as return types. I think we will achieve a solution to > this, but not for a while. Looking at Android intents, they really favor > URL return types, and those are much more convenient in many cases than > Blobs. Additionally, we don't have any metadata construct for return types > at present. > > So I'm leaning towards this prescription for return types for MIME: the > service should strive to return the same type (url or text/blob) that it > was given. If it knows that won't work, or if it is too onerous, it can > return a url instead of the raw text/blob data. This puts a burden on the > client to check the return value's type to see if it is Blob/text or url. I > don't think that's too painful, but it is definitely a downside. In > addition, we should add the corresponding web messaging transferables array > and extras to the return type to match the invocation side. This'll help us > out as Blobs become better options, but URLs are so convenient (as can be > seen by Android usage), that they aren't expected to go away. > > Any reactions or ideas? There's some good parts here, but there's a lot > not to like about this plan, so I'd be really happy to hear a better option! > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM, KOMATSU Kensaku <kensaku.komatsu@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Claes, >> >> I like your idea considering the standardization process for specific >> combinations. I also agree that to make >> interoperability better your proposal will be helpful. >> >> I want to clarify your idea. My opinion is that some combinations such as >> Gallery or Contacts should >> be standardized but everything should not be. I think there should be >> sandbox spaces for some >> Action and Types pair (and it should be documented in schema url). >> Anyway, to list the candidates for >> it is nice idea, I presume. It'll be helpful for developers who want to >> make use of WebIntents. >> >> > Agreed. We won't nail down everything: the action and type namespaces will > remain open. But we definitely need to specify the common ones to promote > good ecosystem development, and clearly any API that rides over intents > will want to be well specified. My expectation is that such APIs will > almost always have custom literal type strings which are under their > control and can have their data specified. > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Nilsson, Claes1 < > Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com> wrote: > >> Hi,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> To achieve interoperability between Client applications and Service >> applications Web Intents based APIs need to be specified. I assume that the >> combination of Action and Type enables a specified API to be used for >> interaction between Client and Service. So this has to be standardized.** >> ** >> >> ** ** >> >> It seems that this is an area where still a lot have to be done. I have >> only seen one tangible proposal for a Web Intents based API submitted to >> W3C, that is the Gallery API, >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/16185b62381d/gallery/index.html. >> Robin has also posted thoughts on a Web Intents based Contacts API, >> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebIntents/ContactsAPI.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I wonder if people on this list know of more tangible proposals for Web >> Intents based APIs than the two mentioned above? Which are your thoughts on >> driving the standardization on Web Intents based API further?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> This is essential in order to succeed with Web Intents.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Best regards**** >> >> Claes**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> [image: cid:3333625383_1036728] >> >> *Claes Nilsson M.Sc.E.E* >> Master Engineer, Research >> Technology Research - Advanced Application Lab >> * >> Sony Mobile Communications* >> Phone: +46 10 80 15178 >> Mobile: +46 705 56 68 78 >> Switchboard: +46 10 80 00000 >> E-Mail:* **mailto:claes1.nilsson@sonymobile.com<claes1.nilsson@sonyericsson.com> >> * >> Visiting Address; Nya Vattentornet >> SE-221 88 LUND, >> Sweden **** >> >> *Disclaimer: >> *The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally >> privileged. It is intended solely for the named recipient(s) and access to >> this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. The views are those of the >> sender and not necessarily the views of Sony Ericsson and Sony Ericsson >> accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever or howsoever arising in >> connection with this e-mail.Any attachment(s) to this message has been >> checked for viruses, but please rely on your own virus checker and >> procedures. If you contact us by e-mail, we will store your name and >> address to facilitate communications. If you are not the intended >> recipient, please inform the sender by replying this transmission and >> delete the e-mail and any copies of it without disclosing it.**** >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> > >
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: image001.gif
Received on Saturday, 2 June 2012 01:34:32 UTC