W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling

From: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 01:38:16 +0200
To: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56242D68.2080901@gmail.com>
Please stop on your side giving lessons again and stop trying to
isolate/elude my initial answer, and refrain people on this list not to
be insulting first.

This one was not insulting, just a general consideration and you should
consider it.

But indeed, back to the "in-scope" technical discussion copied below,
waiting for comments, unless you cut it or try to distract it again.

"
This approach [1] and [2] looks quite good, simple and can cover all cases.

I don't know if we can call it a Web Component really for all cases but
let's call it as such.

In [2] examples the Bio component could be extracted to be passed to the
editor for example and/or could be shared on fb, and idem from fb be
edited, shared, etc

Or let's imagine that I am a 0 in web programming and even Web
Components are too complicate for me, I put an empty Google map and
edit/customize it via a Google map editor, there is [3] maybe too but
anyway the use cases are legions.

The Intent service would then be a visible or a silent Web Component
discussing with the Intent client using postMessage.

Maybe the process could  be instanciated with something specific in href
(as suggested in [2] again) but an Intent object still looks mandatory.

But in case of visible Intent service, the pop-up style looks very ugly
and old, something should be modified so it seems to appear in the
calling page, then the Intent service needs to have the possibility to
become invisible (after login for example).

I don't see any technical difficulty to spec and implement this (except
maybe how to avoid the horrible pop-up effect) and this covers everything."



Le 18/10/2015 20:49, Chaals McCathie Nevile a écrit :
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:09:42 +0200, Aymeric Vitte
> <vitteaymeric@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Le 17/10/2015 16:19, Anders Rundgren a écrit :
>>> Unless you work for a browser vendor or is generally "recognized" for
>>> some specialty, nothing seems to be of enough interest to even get
>>> briefly evaluated.
>>>
>>
>> Right, that's a deficiency of the W3C/WHATWG/whatever specs process,
>> where people well seated in their big companies/org comfortable chairs
>> lack imagination, innovation, are very long to produce anything and just
>> spec for themselves things that become obsolete as soon as they have
>> released it, or things that just never match the reality and general use
>> cases, and they generally disconsider other opinions, although they
>> recognize usually at the end that they messed up, then they respecc it
>> and the loop starts again.
> 
> To be clear, this is a clear example of the lack of civility that I
> referred to earlier, which is inappropriate as noted in the Workmode
> document: https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/blob/gh-pages/WorkMode.md
> 
> Please refrain from insulting people (whether individually or as a
> group), and stick to in-scope technical discussion.
> 
> For the chairs
> 
> Chaals
> 

-- 
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
Received on Sunday, 18 October 2015 23:38:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:58 UTC