- From: Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:24:21 +0900
- To: 'FABLET Youenn' <Youenn.Fablet@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org, 'WebIntents' <public-web-intents@w3.org>
Hi Youenn, Sorry for the belated reply. I am not sure you have kept track of the discussion in the list, but recently there's been a long discussion about how we better handle *multiple* objects in Web Intents data field and the result callback. In the course of the discussion, Greg and I thought it would be more natural to let the collection of media (images, video, etc.) be like a separate type on its own [1]. That is, client-end and service-end expect some gallery-like service differentiated from MIME type data exchange. I believe it is service provider's decision whether they use "MIME" type or "http://intents.w3.org/type/media" type for a service depending on what they want to provide. Please try the Pick Media Intent demo: http://jungkees.github.com/media-intent/ Please let me know if you have any feedback or further concerns about it. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2012Sep/0127.html Regards, Jungkee > -----Original Message----- > From: FABLET Youenn [mailto:Youenn.Fablet@crf.canon.fr] > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 7:03 PM > To: Jungkee Song > Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org; 'WebIntents' > Subject: RE: Pick Media Intent Review > > Hi Jungkee, > > Related to MIME type filtering, the HTML input@accept attribute is an > interesting example. > Developers can tell the file picker which types they are expecting through > the accept attribute, with typical values such as audio/*, image/*... > The user can override this hint and pick whatever file needed. > But in most cases, that is helping to pick the right file faster. > > > As of the difference between MIME vs. "http://...type/media" providers, I > am still not sure to perfectly understand the difference. > I would expect a "http://...type/media" pick provider to easily provide > and be interested in providing "image/*" pick intent as well. > It seems also natural to reuse the dictionary already defined in the 'Pick > media' specification in both cases for instance. > In the context of a 'save' file with MIME/type=image/jpeg provider, one > may want to send some properties to the provider in addition to the raw > data, like its filename if available. > Sure, one could put these properties within the 'extras' dictionary, but > it is straightforward to reuse the 'Pick Media' dictionary for that > purpose. > > Regards, > Youenn > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jungkee Song [mailto:jungkee.song@samsung.com] > > Sent: mercredi 1 août 2012 13:32 > > To: FABLET Youenn > > Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org; 'WebIntents' > > Subject: RE: Pick Media Intent Review > > > > Hi Youenn, > > > > Please see inline. > > > > > Fewer choices, especially if relevant, seems nicer to the end-user. > > > Defaulting rules may be easier to define for user-agents as well, like > > > pick images on flickr, pick music on play. > > > > > > Also, it seems good design to enable provider or user agent to detect > > > whether a media selected by a user matches the web intent client > > > requirements, before actually sharing that data to the intent client. > > > If a web intent client only processes mp3 and a user selects an ogg > > > file (or worse, jpeg), the web intent provider may be able to warn the > > > user before sharing the media. > > > > Upon the loosely coupled nature of Web Intents, we basically do not > prefer to > > put much constraints in the intent parameters. Rather, the service > > implementation can provide flexible UI to allow users to conduct > advanced > > searching and data filtering, including the media type selection. For > example, > > users can choose "video/mpeg" as a search filter in the service UI. > > (I did not consider *explicit intents* here, though.) > > > > > If not passed through the type parameter, which has its own semantics > > > and constraints, that kind of information can fit in the extras > dictionary. > > > > > > > > One straightforward option would be to use the MIME matching type > > > > parameter filtering capacity. > > > > > A user agent would be able to filter the number of potential > > > > > pickers based > > > > on that parameter. > > > > > > > > I think MIME does not give enough information to distinguish the PMI > > > services > > > > from other intent services. > > > > > > Can you elaborate on that? > > > > Using the Pick Media Intent services, users would expect to pick some > useful > > metadata along with the media resource. With the services registered > with the > > type, "http://intents.w3.org/type/media", users can be aware of the > possible > > such services among various media services. > > > > Regards, > > Jungkee > > > > Jungkee Song > > Samsung Electronics
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 06:24:51 UTC