W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2011

[whatwg] Proposal: <intent> tag for Web Intents API

From: Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:13:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CADGdg3AzYsBBXmboNmCoVHXMo0rF3B7tMsfVGxy0n4hRQLw-Dg@mail.gmail.com>
I know James mentioned [1] that we are leaning towards having the tag
in the body which opens up the possibility of unsuported browsers
showing the content of the element.  This had some general consensus
[2]

[1] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2011-December/034084.html
[2] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2011-December/034087.html

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Adam Barth <w3c at adambarth.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan at google.com> wrote:
>> There isn't always a href, if left out the value action should be
>> launched on the current page.
>>
>> We didn't want to add additional attributes to the meta tag or link
>> tag just for intents, this seems to open up the flood gates for future
>> platform features to also extend the meta syntax, the meta element
>> then just becomes a dumping ground. ?If the answer when defining a new
>> declarative standardized platform feature is to just arbitrarily add
>> new attributes to the meta data element we will get to a point where
>> either ?we have attributes that are used in multiple contexts or use
>> of basic attribute name spacing such as "intent-".
>>
>> Looking at the spec[1] it appears there would still be a relatively
>> large change to the html5 spec to accomodate these new attributes and
>> conditional parsing guidelines.
>>
>> A new tag is simple, concise and encapsulates the features and
>> requirements of the new platform feature and gives us scope to iterate
>> for future versions without stepping on the toes of the other features
>> that might use the meta tag.
>
> Does that mean you're not interested in declaring this information in
> the <head> ?
>
> Adam
>
>
>> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-meta-elemen
>>
>> P
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:05:37 +0100, Greg Billock <gbillock at google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The big ergonomic sticking point there is probably the |href|
>>>> attribute, which we envision
>>>> being able to do same-origin registration. Perhaps a similar <link
>>>> rel="intent"> tag
>>>> modification would be able to do that, though. Is that what you'd
>>>> suggest? Do you think
>>>> having two tags involved would be confusing?
>>>
>>>
>>> If there's always an href attribute you could just go for <link> instead. I think you should go for one element and just add attributes as required. And if we want to put inside <head> that would be either <meta> or <link>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Anne van Kesteren
>>> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul Kinlan
>> Developer Advocate @ Google for Chrome and HTML5
>> G+: http://plus.ly/paul.kinlan
>> t: +447730517944
>> tw: @Paul_Kinlan
>> LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/paulkinlan
>> Blog: http://paul.kinlan.me
>> Skype: paul.kinlan



-- 
Paul Kinlan
Developer Advocate @ Google for Chrome and HTML5
G+: http://plus.ly/paul.kinlan
t: +447730517944
tw: @Paul_Kinlan
LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/paulkinlan
Blog: http://paul.kinlan.me
Skype: paul.kinlan
Received on Friday, 16 December 2011 14:13:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:38 UTC