- From: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:52:36 -0700
- To: WebIntents <public-web-intents@w3.org>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
In the draft spec as it is currently [1], there's no allowance for a separate parameter to indicate transferables. This was in the hope that a more "stately" syntax for including transferables in the structured clone algorithm was adopted, and we could use whatever that turned out to be. I remarked on the public webapps thread [2] that I think we should just plan on appending this argument. Here would be the impact: new Intent(action, type, data, transferables_array) and in delivery, the Intent object would have a 'ports' field where passed ports would be recovered. For passing transferables in the reverse direction, we'd have postResult(data, transferables_array) and in the client, this would translate to onSuccess(data, ports) This has the disadvantages and advantages of parallelism with the existing transferables uses. Any opinions or alternatives to consider? I haven't made the 'extras' change to the spec yet because this change would be competing for that same spot. If there's no objection to adding this transferables array argument, I'll add them both at the same time. [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/web-intents/raw-file/tip/spec/Overview.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/1022.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2012Mar/0003.html
Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 19:53:04 UTC