On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Our remaining discomfort here is with isIntentHandlerRegistered(), and
for similar reasons to the fingerprinting qualities of
isProtocolHandlerRegistered(). That is, we'd prefer that web content
simply call
I also agree with Henri and James. I would be opposed to implementing the
feature in WebKit the way it is currently proposed. The aesthetic benefit is
not great enough to be worth the breakage. Consider in particular that the
following proposed markup:
intent
action=edit
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 1:07 AM, rektide rekt...@voodoowarez.com wrote:
Hi,
Is there any ability to pass a MessageChannel Port in as an IntentSetting, or
out in the success handler? Is there any facility to allow multi-part
communications to an activity? For example, Sony does this in their
Hi,
Is there any ability to pass a MessageChannel Port in as an IntentSetting, or
out in the success handler? Is there any facility to allow multi-part
communications to an activity? For example, Sony does this in their Local UPnP
Service Discovery Web Intent's scheme:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM, James Graham jgra...@opera.com wrote:
I agree with Henri that it is
extremely worrying to allow aesthetic concerns to trump backward
compatibility here.
Letting aesthetic concerns trump backward compat is indeed troubling.
It's also troubling that this even
On 08/02/2012 06:57 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
But now consider the short-term cost of adding an element to the head. All
it does is make a few elements in the head leak to the body. The page
still works fine in legacy UAs (none of the elements only work in the
head).
But it will break any
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Thus, I propose a parallel mechanism in the form of an empty
element that goes in the head:
intent
action=edit intent action, e.g. open or edit, default share
type=image/png MIME type filter, default omitted,
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Henri Sivonen wrote:
This is a severe violation of the Degrade Gracefully design principle.
Adopting your proposal would mean that pages that include the intent
element in head would parse significantly differently in browsers that
predate the HTML parsing algorithm or
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Having carefully studied the Mozilla Web Activities proposal, the Web
Intents draft, the register*Handler APIs, and to a lesser extent the
dispatch mechanisms in existing operating systems (desktop and mobile) and
the piles
Having carefully studied the Mozilla Web Activities proposal, the Web
Intents draft, the register*Handler APIs, and to a lesser extent the
dispatch mechanisms in existing operating systems (desktop and mobile) and
the piles of advocacy on teh subject on the Web, I've tried to come up
with a
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
Windows Explorer (the file manager) does for example offer users to edit
images upon right-click. I worry that if URI scheme handlers need not
only take care of fetching but also of presentation,
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Greg Billock gbill...@google.com wrote:
Ian,
My suggestion then would be to add an element similar to what you suggest,
as well as an API similar to the existing one.
The element could be something like:
intent
action=edit intent action, e.g.
Ian,
As you can tell by the delay, we've (James Hawkins, Paul Kinlan,
myself, others working on web intents for Chromium) been carefully
reading your email and talking about the issues you bring up.
I think we agree on most things, except for some small but important points.
Considering RPH,
On 04/03/2012 01:23 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
You could also have
meta name=intent content=http://webintents.org/share image/*
or some such. Splitting a string on spaces and using the result is not
that hard and a common pattern. And seems like a
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:11:52 +0100, Mounir Lamouri mou...@lamouri.fr
wrote:
Trying to fit the registration components listed above into meta
really doesn't work all that well, IMHO.
meta name=viewport does that and is widely used AFAICT.
It's used because it has important functionality
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, James Hawkins wrote:
One of the critical pieces of the API is a declarative registration
which allows sites to declare which intents they may be registered for.
The current draft of the API calls for a new HTML tag, intent, the
attributes of which describe the
16 matches
Mail list logo
