- From: Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:04:26 -0800
Sorry for the delay in replying. Yes we are ok with it being in the body. ?Having the intent tag in the body allows us to have a strong graceful degradation story for Web Developers and Publishers. ?The <intent> tag in the body allows us to do several nice things such as: 1. Giving the user another way to handle the action and allowing for custom styling of the element: <intent action="http://webintents.org/share" ... style="background-color:red;"> <p>Add our bookmarklet <a href="javascript:.......">Drag to bookmark bar</a></p> </intent> 2. We can add the script polyfil in seamlessly - conforming UA's will ignore internal content, non-conforming UA's will treat it as an element they should descend into and thus load the required script. <intent ...> <!-- Load the polyfill shim --> <script src="http://webintents.org/webintents.min.js"></script> </intent> 3. It opens up the possibility for intent specific sub-tags - much like <source> in <video> that we might need in the future. P On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Adam Barth <w3c at adambarth.com> wrote: > > 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 -- 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 Wednesday, 25 January 2012 12:04:26 UTC