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

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

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:18:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia_dCn6i5bPFTC-iVPcKjxTZVVDVz_yNDUY0hSzJVzYQXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To be clear, you're ok with not being able to include the <intent>
element in the <head>.

Adam


On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan at google.com> wrote:
> 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 14:18:02 UTC

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