- From: Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:40:33 +0900
- To: 'Robin Berjon' <robin@berjon.com>, 'Steve VanDeBogart' <vandebo@google.com>
- Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org, public-sysapps@w3.org, 'WebIntents' <public-web-intents@w3.org>
Robin, thanks for the clarification. I absolutely agree. Regards, Jungkee > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com] > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 10:10 PM > To: Steve VanDeBogart > Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org; public- > sysapps@w3.org; WebIntents > Subject: Re: Media Access/Device Storage/Gallery API > > On Jun 1, 2012, at 20:00 , Steve VanDeBogart wrote: > > I don't think the web intent approach is appropriate for local files > because it requires too much user intervention; consider a photo album > type application that is meant to help your organize your local pictures. > The user wants to be able to grant access to an entire gallery, not just > individual pictures. Furthermore, in the steady state, the user won't > want to select their galleries each time they open their photo album app, > they'll want it to retain access. Web intents aren't really designed to do > that and I don't think it makes sense to add that kind of feature. > > I think that the massive cross-post going on here is causing some > conflation of use cases. > > Steve's example use case is valid, and within the context of the SysApps > group it would certainly be valuable to provide a powerful gallery API > that can do much more than the intents version, possibly without user > intervention. In fact, implementing a local content intent would likely > require such an API. That's for the part that SysApps is concerned with. > > Within DAP's scope, a very simple and straightforward intents-based > gallery API, with its known limitations, is equally useful (but for > different uses). That's why DAP's in the loop. > > The Intents TF is in the loop because the API proposed for DAP uses > Intents (and has an implementation: https://github.com/jungkees/gallery/). > > There is natural overlap and complementarity between an intents-based API > and a system level one, if only in terms of the metadata that's attached, > and possibly in how one represents input (e.g. searches) and output (files, > URIs, etc.). I see that both are needed, and as the two are being > developed it would be very useful if a communication channel were kept > open. > > But I don't think that crossing the beams is useful just yet! It would > likely be more productive to keep different thread separate as this > discussion evolves; more specifically: > > . For SysApps, what are the use cases for this API (no matter what it's > called) and should it be prioritised. > . For DAP, do we like the proposed design for the intent and how do we > move forward on refinements, publication, etc. > . For Intents, looking at what Jungkee put together are the obvious issues > with intents for this use case and if any how can they be addressed. > > I think the resulting discussions will be a lot clearer :) > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 07:41:57 UTC