- From: James Hawkins <jhawkins@chromium.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:59:25 -0700
- To: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
- Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com>, "public-web-intents@w3.org" <public-web-intents@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAO800SwL6mJ5ZJtHmNf5NmtZ8XweAXySJAgMYeqQSJS5_XDyvg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com> wrote: > 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. > > We can't self-limit the API by saying that using ports (transferables, actually) obviates the need for extras since this is not necessarily true. I propose putting both the |extraData| and |transferList| as optional parameters in one constructor, but have |transferList| as the last parameter since we definitely envision it being the least-used of the two. I also propose shortening |extraData| to |extras| to match the Android Intents API (plus it's shorter/cleaner). Thanks, James > > > > 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 22:00:29 UTC