Re: Proposal for "default services" parameter in IntentParameters dictionary

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Deepanshu Gautam
<deepanshu.gautam@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>
> Deepanshu Gautam
> Senior Engineer, Service Standards, Huawei
> O: +86 25 56620008 M: +8613585147627
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Greg Billock [mailto:gbillock@google.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 11:02 PM
>> To: Deepanshu Gautam
>> Cc: James Hawkins; Josh Soref; public-web-intents@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Proposal for "default services" parameter in IntentParameters
>> dictionary
>>
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Deepanshu Gautam
>> <deepanshu.gautam@huawei.com> wrote:
>> > Inline...
>> >
>> > Deepanshu Gautam
>> > Senior Engineer, Service Standards, Huawei
>> > O: +86 25 56620008 M: +8613585147627
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Greg Billock [mailto:gbillock@google.com]
>> >> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 1:11 AM
>> >> To: Deepanshu Gautam
>> >> Cc: James Hawkins; Josh Soref; public-web-intents@w3.org
>> >> Subject: Re: Proposal for "default services" parameter in IntentParameters
>> >> dictionary
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Deepanshu Gautam
>> >> <deepanshu.gautam@huawei.com> wrote:
>> >> > Some question on the latest draft.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Section 4.3 says "The User Agent should ignore the suggested services
>> from
>> >> > the intent invocation if the user already has a handler selected." The
>> last
>> >> > time I heard about this
>> >> > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-
>> intents/2012Apr/0085.html),
>> >> > it was decided to user "MAY" here. Has it been changed? Why?
>> >>
>> >> The "MAY" there was about the registration of suggested services.
>> >>
>> >> I'm open to changes in this wording. If you think it ought to be one
>> >> way or another.
>> >
>> > [DG] If the assumption is: "not to show the Suggestion unless the picker is
>> empty" then this statement is wrong. As I said, the user may not have selected
>> the handler just yet (bcz this is the first time), but the matching services
>> exists and should be listed in the picker. So, I suggest to delete the entire
>> statement or change it to MAY at least.
>>
>> I'm confused here. There are two sentences (which perhaps should be in
>> different paragraphs) about two different pieces of behavior:
>>
>> "The User Agent should ignore the suggested services from the intent
>> invocation if the user already has a handler selected."
>>
>> and
>>
>> "The User Agent may ask the user if they wish to install all or any of
>> the suggested services, just as for any other visit of those pages."
>>
>> Could you rewrite them the way you think they ought to be so I can see
>> the difference?
> [DG] My comment is only about the first sentence and I suggest to delete (using MAY will be worse) it completely bcz it is confusing things up.

That's a fair comment. Any objections by anyone else? If not, I'll delete it.

>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > Section 4.3 says "The User Agent must follow the matching algorithm of
>> the
>> >> > "Matching action and type for delivery" section before delivering the
>> Intent
>> >> > to a suggested service, just as for any Intent delivery." Why this is
>> >> > needed? Isn't that the "suggestions" are provided in the picker only
>> after
>> >> > matching Action and Type (section 3.3 Invocation API)? Why Action and
>> Type
>> >> > have to matched again at Delivery? I think this applies to Intent in
>> >> > general. Am I missing something?
>> >>
>> >> The UA or client's data may be stale. The final authority is the page
>> >> as loaded at delivery time, which the UA must respect.
>> >
>> > [DG] So, suppose it (matching fails at delivery) happens once for service
>> ABC. Will that service be still listed for that particular action in future?
>> Do we have to somehow spec the UA behavior in this case?
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > At last, I asked this before also
>> >> > "http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-
>> intents/2012Apr/0085.html"
>> >> > and here it goes again.
>> >> >
>> >> > Can the functionality of "Suggestion" be achieved by extending "explicit
>> >> > intent" to have one or more values? If there is only one value (which
>> will
>> >> > also mean that there is only one recommendation) then it will become
>> >> > "explicit Intent " i.e UA can load the service directly. If there are
>> more
>> >> > than one values (or recommendations) then it will become "Suggestion" i.e
>> UA
>> >> > may allow user to select from them. I think it makes sense to merge
>> >> > "explicit" and "suggestion" functionalities.
>> >>
>> >> I also had this intuition that there's a way to think about them in
>> >> the same way, but I'm convinced by earlier discussion that that's
>> >> confusing.  "explicit" has very different semantics from
>> >> "suggestions". Having one field with two semantics is confusing. (How
>> >> would you give only one suggestion?) It's better to have separate
>> >> fields for these two use cases. (Suggestions don't even make sense for
>> >> explicit intents.)
>> >>
>> >> Even if we decided "explicit" wasn't a MUST for the UA, they still
>> >> would mean something quite different.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Deepanshu Gautam
>> >> >
>> >> > Senior Engineer, Service Standards, Huawei
>> >> >
>> >> > O: +86 25 56620008 M: +8613585147627
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > From: jhawkins@google.com [mailto:jhawkins@google.com] On Behalf Of James
>> >> > Hawkins
>> >> > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:33 AM
>> >> > To: Greg Billock
>> >> > Cc: Josh Soref; public-web-intents@w3.org
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Subject: Re: Proposal for "default services" parameter in
>> IntentParameters
>> >> > dictionary
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > In an attempt to make this aspect of the feature more trustworthy, we
>> should
>> >> > modify the language to be a bit more explicit about requirements:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > * MUST display a suggestion if the picker is otherwise empty.
>> >> >
>> >> > * SHOULD display the suggestion anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> > * MAY limit the number of suggestions shown
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >
>> >> > James
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I think 'suggestions' will work the best from this list. I'm going to
>> >> > go ahead and add it with that name.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:39 PM, James Hawkins <jhawkins@chromium.org>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Josh Soref <jsoref@rim.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Greg wrote:
>> >> >>> >  sequence<URL> defaults;
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > Some questions.
>> >> >>> > First off, I don't like "defaults".
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Me neither
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > I think it makes
>> >> >>> > it sound like a more permanent default setting, which we want to
>> >> >>> > reserve for something arranged by the user and the UA.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Right
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > I prefer
>> >> >>> > "recommendations".
>> >> >>> > Does that sound good? "recommendedServices"? Any
>> >> >>> better ideas?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> suggested
>> >> >>> known
>> >> >>> available
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> suggestions
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >

Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 14:07:41 UTC