- From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:06:28 +0100
- To: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- CC: public-web-intents@w3.org, Claes Nilsson <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com>, Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>
Just to note that at the F2F, we talked about how to deal with an expanding number of optional parameters for the Intent constructor, and ended up agreeing that an object literal was the way to go. Josh should have the minutes ready soon, and I am looking forward to an updated proposal from James et al. covering this. Note that this also covers the message channel, with the ports being treated as part of the object literal passed to the Intent constructor. For simple cases, James and Greg thought it would be convenient to continue to support the simpler arguments for the constructor, as an alternative to using the object literal. This raises the question of when the message channel is created: at the time the Intent constructor is called, or when starting the activity, or by the service itself, with the ports passed back to the web app handler as supplied to the start activity method. Finally, Ian Hickson earlier proposed a simplication to web intents. James/Greg spoke with him and report that Ian is warming to the current proposal, especially in view of the number of parameters that may need to be passed for requesting and initiating the service. I very much look forward to Ian's review of the revised proposal. -- Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 08:07:21 UTC