This is related to the post http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_frm/thread/d194cd83748be840# that was about intent extras.
Going through the list of Intent URIs: http://www.openintents.org/en/uris it seems even less obvious how to name new URI schemes. content://com.google.provider.NotePad seems to work unambiguously if there is a Content Provider. But what if there is no content provider? URI schemes have been introduced in various ways: * http:, mailto:, geo: OK, these are standardized schemes. * tel: , voicemail: ok, it makes sense to introduce these on a phone. * content: Ok, accepted for content providers. but: * google.streetview: A new scheme - including a company name? * flickr: an inexistent scheme? How should developers proceed to create new protocols? e.g. for the Mandelbrot application ( http://code.google.com/p/mandelbrot/ ) it would make sense to introduce ACTION_VIEW + a new intent URI specifying the coordinate and zoom level, similar to the geo: URI. But what would that URI scheme be? * mandelbrot:x,y,zoom ? * fractal.mandelbrot:x,y,zoom ? * com.alfray.mandelbrot:x,y,zoom ? * content://com.alfray.mandelbrot:image?x=x,y=y,zoom=zoom ? It would make sense to use fully qualified names for schemes in order to avoid future conflict - but is this how it should be done? Peli --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
