- From: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 18:53:04 +0200
- To: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
- CC: "public-web-intents@w3.org" <public-web-intents@w3.org>
If I understand what you are trying to do, then do not use the registration markup as a tag for "this is an intent-related page, it is OK to clobber window.intent". Just use some other *constant* tag. Otherwise, you will have the problem of explaining what happens with the registration markup does not match what is in the page. How about a <meta> in the header ? Best regards JC On 6/6/12 18:37 , Greg Billock wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Jean-Claude Dufourd > <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote: >> In section 4: >> >> "User agents must not place a window.intent object in the scope of pages >> which do not have registration metadata declaring themselves as intent >> handlers." >> >> If the Service page and the Registration page are separate, then the >> window.intent object is in the scope of a page that does not "have >> registration metadata declaring themselves as intent handlers". So I would >> think this sentence should be: >> >> "User agents must not place a window.intent object in the scope of pages >> which have not been registered as intent handlers." > My intention here is to allow registration to happen on separate > pages, but to still require<intent> on the page itself. Otherwise you > create cache coherency problems for the app developer. The final > authority is the service-page-as-loaded. > >> Next sentence has the same problem: >> >> "This means that any use of window.intent in pages which do not explicitly >> declare themselves as web intents handlers must not be overwritten by the >> User Agent." >> >> I think it should be: >> >> "This means that any use of window.intent in pages which are not explicitly >> declared as web intents handlers must not be overwritten by the User Agent." >> >> And last, I do not understand the meaning of the word "overwritten" in the >> above sentence. >> I would have expected that part of the sentence to be "SHALL trigger an >> error" or the like. > What I'm trying to say here, and I agree this is awkward, is that if > there's no declaration in the page, then the UA shouldn't touch > 'window.intent'. That is, pages that are explicitly saying they want > intents will use that variable, but pages that aren't explicitly > saying they expect intents (that is, most pages), won't have their > variable stomped on if they are already using 'window.intent' for > something. > > In webkit IDL, this is done with the [Replaceable] modifier. I'm not > sure what language is typically used in the standards to communicate > that, but I'm sure there's a better way to say it. > > Thanks for all the examination! I really appreciate it. > > -Greg > > >> Best regards >> JC >> >> -- >> JC Dufourd >> Directeur d'Etudes/Professor >> Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group >> Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing >> Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France >> Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144 -- JC Dufourd Directeur d'Etudes/Professor Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 16:53:37 UTC