Re: Content of URL picked by Intent

Hi, 

> > It sounds like we are saying here that a 'profile' may require an array where it makes sense (e.g. Pick Contacts) and otherwise it can be either an array or single, requiring checking; though it might be simpler to always require returning an array.

A more explicit way (like specifying "multiple") is sometimes useful in
a Pick-Media type use case even if an array is available for intent.

Note that my point here is multiple contents in the post result data
retruned in the IntentSuccessCallback and NOT multiple contents 
in data of Intent object.

Please assume a service just wants a single image to edit. If it can
tell "just one image is enough" at the startActivity time, the invoked
service which supports "Pick-Media" web intents can arrange its intent
page for a user to select only a single image - disabling multiple
selection for example. 

I believe this is not a Pick-Media specific requirement. Therefore the
WebIntents spec should have a way for a service to allow/prohibit
multiple post result contents like below; 

interface Intent {
    readonly attribute DOMString     action;
    readonly attribute DOMString     type;
    readonly attribute any           data;
    readpnly attribute Boolean    multiplePostResults;
	// true if multiple result is allowed.
    readonly attribute MessagePort[] ports;
    void postResult (any data, optional sequence<Transferable> transferable);
    void postFailure (any data);
};

This requirement is not applicable for intent actions which don't use a
post result. 

Don't you think this is useful?

Thanks,
Kikkawa


On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 03:16:55 +0900
Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 8:04 AM,  <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
> > It sounds like we are saying here that a 'profile' may require an array where it makes sense (e.g. Pick Contacts) and otherwise it can be either an array or single, requiring checking; though it might be simpler to always require returning an array.
> >
> > To make sense of information an agreement is needed so we can expect a 'profile' like Pick Contacts etc, to specify that an array is returned, if this is not the mandatory default.
> >
> > What is the downside of using a Javascript array? Seems straightforward and simple...
> 
> No downside -- that's what I prefer. The only thing I worry about is
> if it is enough of a gotcha for simple cases (single values) that we
> should do either something more explicit (like "multiple") or also
> recommend handling a single object as { ... } instead of [ { ... } ].
> Both are accommodations, and so are disappointing, but if they end up
> making the API simpler to work with for most cases, I see the case for
> making them.
> 
> >
> > regards, Frederick
> >
> > Frederick Hirsch
> > Nokia
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 12, 2012, at 2:09 AM, ext Jungkee Song wrote:
> >
> >>> From: Greg Billock [mailto:gbillock@google.com]
> >>> Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 12:23 AM
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Greg,
> >>>>
> >>>> I propose we introduce *collection* [1]. FileList object in File API [2]
> >>>> already shows *collection* is quite handy to deliver and access list of
> >>>> objects.
> >>>
> >>> We already have in the spec that |data| is an arbitrary structured
> >>> clone, which can be a collection. A perfectly valid solution is to
> >>> just always have return types be collections, so in response to a pick
> >>> intent you'd get:
> >>>
> >>> [ { "url": "the url", "filename": "filename" } ]
> >>
> >> Yes. In the schema level, client and service can have an agreement that they
> >> will exchange data in collection type always. To make it explicit, we can
> >> specify the requirement for data exchange type in related documents.
> >>
> >>
> >>> JS already has the right tools to handle data objects like this. In
> >>> that world, there's no need for "multiple" -- the payload is always
> >>> potentially multiple. It is a bit error prone in the sense that for
> >>> one object you have to return "[obj]" instead of just "obj".
> >>
> >> I think for the services that essentially assume multiple-object delivery
> >> (e.g., Pick Contacts/Media Intent), it is even better for developers to
> >> always expect the result as collection type even for a single object case
> >> like [obj]; otherwise, developers always have to check the type (like the
> >> code example below) as Intents are loosely-coupled and being developed
> >> independently.
> >>
> >>
> >>> One solution would be to allow both:
> >>>
> >>> function intentResult(data) {
> >>>  if (data instanceof Array) {
> >>>    handleResult(data[0]);
> >>>    // obviously not fully general, but you get the idea
> >>>  } else {
> >>>    handleResult(data);
> >>>  }
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> I prefer using existing machinery rather than inventing a new class to
> >>> solve this problem. I'm pretty sure that having used structured clone,
> >>> we have enough latitude to solve this problem at the schema level, and
> >>> not need any new API complexity.
> >>
> >> Yes, I agree.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> --Web IDL
> >>>> [ArrayClass]
> >>>> interface ObjectList {
> >>>>  getter Object? item(unsigned long index);
> >>>>  readonly attribute unsigned long length;
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> --ECMAScript (Client)
> >>>> var mimeObjects = getImageDataBlobList(...); // return collection of
> >>>> MimeTypeIntentData
> >>>> var intent = new Intent({
> >>>>    action: "http://intents.w3.org/pick",
> >>>>    type: "image/png",
> >>>>    data: objects
> >>>> });
> >>>>
> >>>> navigator.startActivity(intent);
> >>>>
> >>>> --WebIDL (Service)
> >>>> partial interface Intent {
> >>>>    readonly attribute Object objectList;
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> --ECMAScript (Service)
> >>>> window.intent.objectList.item(0);
> >>>> or
> >>>> window.intent.objectList[0]
> >>>>
> >>>> both are valid syntax.
> >>>>
> >>>> This can be used for Pick Media Intent and Pick Contacts Intent to
> >>> deliver
> >>>> array of Media objects and array of Contact objects, respectively as
> >>> well.
> >>>> i.e., I think it covers generic use cases in delivering list of
> >>> *objects*.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/domcore/#collections
> >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/FileAPI/#dfn-filelist
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Jungkee
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Greg Billock [mailto:gbillock@google.com]
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 2:39 AM
> >>>>> To: Norifumi Kikkawa
> >>>>> Cc: Paul Kinlan; public-web-intents@w3.org
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Content of URL picked by Intent
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The previous thinking on formatting intent payloads for MIME is here:
> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebIntents/MIME_Types
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This has two flaws which we need to fix. First is that it relies on
> >>>>> |extras| which we don't want to do. The second is that we need to
> >>>>> figure out how to pass multiple data through, for which I think we'll
> >>>>> use the "multiple: true" key. There are a few options here, but what I
> >>>>> am advocating for is that data payloads for MIME types are always
> >>>>> javascript objects, and that there is a consistent namespace of keys
> >>>>> across all types. Proposal:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> dictionary MimeTypeIntentData {
> >>>>>  URL url;
> >>>>>  Blob blob;
> >>>>>  DOMString text;
> >>>>>  DOMString filename;
> >>>>>  boolean multiple;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This plan needs some help when multiple is true. The fields could
> >>>>> become sequence<URL>, sequence<Blob>, etc., but that's distasteful.
> >>>>> Any better ideas for how to handle that?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We will almost certainly end up with other keys in this schema for
> >>>>> MIME types (for example, I've suggested using "errorName" and
> >>>>> "errorMessage" for keys in error objects to parallel the JS Error type
> >>>>> fields while trying to keep them separate from potential fields in
> >>>>> non-error payloads). We've talked about passing 'origin' in some
> >>>>> situations, and it may come to pass that 'origin' ends up being a
> >>>>> voluntary payload field for some interchange types. You can imagine
> >>>>> wanting to attach a "Content-Type" field, especially for something
> >>>>> like {action: "pick", type: "image/*"} where the service can return
> >>>>> the exact type of the attached image.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for pushing on this. This is a critical discussion, as we
> >>>>> recognized early on, and I'm glad that we're far enough on to be
> >>>>> tackling it directly. :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Greg
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Norifumi Kikkawa
> >>>>> <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Paul, Thank you for your comment.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, for sharing purpose, the content of URL doesn't matter in many
> >>>>> cases.
> >>>>>> I'm thinking of "view" intent, which will enable a service to play
> >>> its
> >>>>>> introduced movie on a TV with the local discovery addendum.
> >>>>>> In different from the image use case, maybe the view intent should
> >>> pass
> >>>>> url
> >>>>>> to the movie rather than its binary file.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Assuming the TV can play MP4 but WebM. I'd like to see a user agent
> >>>>>> filters out incompatible TV from its picker list based on target
> >>> movie.
> >>>>>> For example, to play WebM content, the TV above should not be shown
> >>> even
> >>>>>> if it supports 'view' action (, or shown with "can't play" message).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Given have just removed extras, the data attribute in the intent
> >>> object
> >>>>> will need to carry extra data, so I will share a link to a document
> >>> that
> >>>>> describes how the payload should appear exactly for then share intent
> >>>>> across multiple data types.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes. With keeping the type attribute as "video/mp4" to simplify user
> >>>>>> agent's work for filtering pickers, some other way should tell how to
> >>>>>> specify the content.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In the Data Formats section of http://webintents.org/pick, Brob, Data
> >>>>>> URI and their list are assumed and may be distincted implicitly. Just
> >>>>>> adding 'referece URI(?)' here without adding any data attribute is
> >>>>>> minimum option.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anyway, at first, I'd like to know whether such usage of url in web
> >>>>>> intents is possible or not since I have never seen it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Kikkawa
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 19:12:35 +0900
> >>>>>> Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Text/uri-list is for sharing URLs, it doesn't care what the content
> >>> is
> >>>>> behind that URL. Think of a button that is in the browser that just
> >>> says
> >>>>> share the URL in then address bar.  It could be a page, movie or PDF
> >>> file.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To be very explicit abut sharing a movie file your data type would
> >>> be
> >>>>> video/mpeg for example.  Then a URL that is passed in would be a
> >>> pointer
> >>>>> to a video file.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Given have just removed extras, the data attribute in the intent
> >>> object
> >>>>> will need to carry extra data, so I will share a link to a document
> >>> that
> >>>>> describes how the payload should appear exactly for then share intent
> >>>>> across multiple data types.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> P
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 5 Sep 2012 01:22, "Norifumi Kikkawa"
> >>>>> <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com<mailto:Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I found that some media related intents actions can handle not only
> >>>>>>> binary content but also url list. For example,
> >>>>>>> http://webintents.org/share, http://webintents.org/pick assume the
> >>>>>>> text/url type.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Although I believe this is also useful in case of a single big
> >>> content
> >>>>> (e.g.
> >>>>>>> movie), I concern that the "text/url" type seems not enough
> >>>>>>> to determine the capability/requirement of services. How can the
> >>> intent
> >>>>>>> registration tag say "I can provide a url for movie, but for contact
> >>>>>>> info"? How to pick a movie by url?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My question is :
> >>>>>>> 1. Can a URL be used for such porpose in web intents?
> >>>>>>> 2. Does it make sense to add some mechanism to expose more detail
> >>>>>>> info in "text/url" case?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A URL may reveal its origin, but this is another issue...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Kikkawa
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> Norifumi Kikkawa
> >>>>> <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com<mailto:Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com>>
> >>>>>>>  Section 1
> >>>>>>>  Network Technology Dept.
> >>>>>>>  Information Technology Development Division
> >>>>>>>  System & Software Technology Platfotm
> >>>>>>>  Sony Corporation
> >>>>>>> (TEL) +81 50 3750 3953<tel:%2B81%2050%203750%203953>
> >>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> Norifumi Kikkawa <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com>
> >>>>>>  Section 1
> >>>>>>  Network Technology Dept.
> >>>>>>  Information Technology Development Division
> >>>>>>  System & Software Technology Platfotm
> >>>>>>  Sony Corporation
> >>>>>> (TEL) +81 50 3750 3953
> >>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >

---------------------------------------------
 Norifumi Kikkawa <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com>
  Section 1
  Network Technology Dept.
  Information Technology Development Division
  System & Software Technology Platfotm 
  Sony Corporation
 (TEL) +81 50 3750 3953 
-----------------------------------------------

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 09:12:30 UTC