Hi James, thanks for bringing this forward, it is indeed a very interesting approach.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 22:27 , James Hawkins wrote: > I've read through the Webapps charter, and I believe Web Intents fits the > goals and scope of the WG. It does fit the goal and scope, but then most web client technology does ;) Where you may run into issues is that it does not fit in the deliverables list. Since that is what members makes their IP commitment on, a new deliverable of non-negligible content might require rechartering. Last time we did that, it wasn't very pleasant. Thankfully, there is already a group that was chartered with Intents (or, in the poetic phrasing of charters, with "an API that allows web applications to register themselves as handlers/providers based on data string identifiers and an API that enables other web applications to discover these handlers/providers and gain permission to interact with them" — but "Intents" is what that means): the Device APIs group, http://www.w3.org/2011/07/DeviceAPICharter. It'd save a lot on the bureaucracy and allow us all to just go straight to work. We'd certainly be happy to accept your draft input. The new DAP is meant to be completely flexible in how it is organised. Notably, if you prefer to conduct work on this spec without necessarily getting all the email from the rest of the group we can setup a dedicated Task Force with its own mailing list and chair (if there's a volunteer, otherwise I'll do it). TFs can decide whether they want to have telcons or not. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
