Re: Web Intents W3C Editor's Draft 31 January 2012 - Review comments

Great job Greg.

I'd like to see the intent element section brought closer in line with 
HTML5's spec semantics.
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-canvas-element
With the intent registration tag, the only Category would be "Embedded 
content".
Include in the definition that the <intent> may have fallback content.

....

The WebIDL on the constructor is a little dated. I believe that "raises" 
and "in" were taken out of current IDL.
[Constructor(in string action, in string type, in optional any
         data, in optional sequence<Transferable> transferList, in 
optional dictionary<string> extraData) raises DOMException]

I want to confirm that this IDL was intended; my understanding earlier 
was that it would be:
[Constructor(DOMString action, DOMString type, optional any data, 
optional sequence<Transferable> transferList),
Constructor(DOMString action, DOMString type, optional any data, 
optional Dictionary<DOMString> extraData)]

interface Intent {} has a typo in getData. "DOMSTring" [sic] should be 
"DOMString".
Shouldn't that interface have port MessagePorts[] or otherwise have a 
getPorts method?


-Charles

On 3/14/2012 12:35 PM, Greg Billock wrote:
> I've updated the document to reflect a lot of this and also to add the 
> "extraData" and "transferList" arguments we've discussed on list.
>
> Thanks for the input! I am excited to see the doc getting better.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com 
> <mailto:gbillock@google.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Nilsson, Claes1
>     <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com
>     <mailto:Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         As a preparation for the Web Intents session in Shenzhen I am
>         reviewing the draft Web Intents specification,
>         http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/web-intents/raw-file/tip/spec/Overview.html.
>         Some initial comments below:
>
>