Re: more questions on draft

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