- From: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:43:03 -0700
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Cc: "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com>, "public-web-intents@w3.org" <public-web-intents@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > 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 Thanks, Charles. I hadn't seen that form. I'll switch to it. > 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)] I brought this up at the end of the thread about extras. What are folks' opinions about using two constructors vs. having one with more optional parameters? I favor having the one so that ports and extra metadata can be mixed, even though it'll lead to an empty array parameter sometimes. > > interface Intent {} has a typo in getData. "DOMSTring" [sic] should be > "DOMString". Fixing... > Shouldn't that interface have port MessagePorts[] or otherwise have a > getPorts method? Yes! Thank you. I'd forgotten that. ... OK, pushing to repo now... > > > -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> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Nilsson, Claes1 >> <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: >>> >>> > >
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 21:43:32 UTC