Re: [whatwg] Meta bugreport proposal
Overall, I think this is interesting and something some browser developers would really like to see, as they often want to report site compatibility issues. Therefore, I think you might want to write down a proposal that's more detailed and create an entry in the registry[1] so that people know such an idea exists. I don't think it's particularly important to get an Accepted status and popularizing the idea is probably more important. Also, you might want to share your idea on public-vo...@w3.org[2] as there are more people on that list who are in general more interested in features like this. (12/10/31 17:21), Nicolas Froidure wrote: The uri could be : - mailto: to send a report by mail (ex: mailto:webmas...@example.org) - http: to send the bug report a a simple HTTP POST request (ex: http://example.org/bugreport). - bug: something more customizable to allow webmasters to fit bug reports with their systems (ex: bug:http?uri=/bug.datmethod=POSTcaptcha=/captcha.jpg ) I am not sure a new scheme is a good idea. For embedding data in a URL, you might consider something like data:text/plain,http?uri=/bug.datmethod=POSTcaptcha=/captcha.jpg but I am not an expert on this to say whether this is a good idea. - etc (ws:, irc: ...) In order to test this i just made a Chrome extension illustrating how browsers could handle this meta markup : https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bugmeback/hgmagcomobmjhaomdoihiggpdekaehmg The code is there : https://github.com/nfroidure/BugMeBack Thanks for moving this forward with a concrete implementation instead of an abstract idea! I am not familiar Chrome extension API and what chrome.extension.sendRequest does, but if it does send an email when @href is a mailto: URL, you might want to either: 1. Discuss with whoever creates the entry for rel=webmaster in [1] to see if either rel=webmaster can be dropped or rel=bugreport can be merged into it. 2. Extract mailto: URL from rel=webmaster too and treat it as if it is rel=bugreport. Are you interested in that kind of approach for bug reporting ? I think a lot of people do dream of an automatic Web but unfortunately it's never easy to make one. [1] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/ Cheers, Kenny -- Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Re: [whatwg] Meta bugreport proposal
On 31/10/2012 20:33, Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Nicolas Froidure wrote: I think we need a specification to allow users to report websites bugs from their browser. That's why i think it could be usefull to add a meta markup like this : meta name=bugreport content=(uri) / The uri could be : - mailto: to send a report by mail (ex: mailto:webmas...@example.org) - http: to send the bug report a a simple HTTP POST request (ex: http://example.org/bugreport). - bug: something more customizable to allow webmasters to fit bug reports with their systems (ex: bug:http?uri=/bug.datmethod=POSTcaptcha=/captcha.jpg ) - etc (ws:, irc: ...) In order to test this i just made a Chrome extension illustrating how browsers could handle this meta markup : https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bugmeback/hgmagcomobmjhaomdoihiggpdekaehmg The code is there : https://github.com/nfroidure/BugMeBack Are you interested in that kind of approach for bug reporting ? This seems interesting. My recommendation would be to continue developing the extension, and to try to convince browser vendors and site owners that this is a good feature to expose. If there is momentum behind a feature such as this, it is much easier to push it into a spec. See also: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_a_specification.3F I have made a Opera version of the extension today (it's on the repo for anyone who want to test). I've got a strong experience on Firefox add-ons so it wouldn't take a lot of time to do it for me. As some developper told me, it's on Internet Explorer that there's issues most of the time but no idea on how to do that for this browser, if anyone want to help, feel free. In order to promote this feature, you have to know that the bug reports can be copy/paste into a mail when the link is not present. That's why i already use the extension to report bugs to webmasters. I suggest anyone who think the feature should become a spec to report bugs this way. On my side, i'll get most feedback i can and then write uses cases. Feel free to give me yours. On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Julian Reschke wrote: link, notmeta. Indeed
Re: [whatwg] Meta bugreport proposal
On 01/11/2012 07:30, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote: I am not sure a new scheme is a good idea. For embedding data in a URL, you might consider something like data:text/plain,http?uri=/bug.datmethod=POSTcaptcha=/captcha.jpg but I am not an expert on this to say whether this is a good idea. It seems better. I added this to issues on GitHub. I am not familiar Chrome extension API and what chrome.extension.sendRequest does, but if it does send an email when @href is a mailto: URL, you might want to either: 1. Discuss with whoever creates the entry for rel=webmaster in [1] to see if either rel=webmaster can be dropped or rel=bugreport can be merged into it. 2. Extract mailto: URL from rel=webmaster too and treat it as if it is rel=bugreport. Unfortunately, the mailto protocol doesn't accept more than 1048 characters. It's not enought to cover console messages and the screenshot provided as a dataUri. It could be done by creating an internet resource and then providing a link via the mailto protocol, but i'm not able to host that content myself. In the other hand it could be a good way for browser vendors to have tracability on bug reports done with their browser in order to know the main issues encountered by their users. I know opera currently have quality programs to retrieve bugs and contact webmasters manually.
[whatwg] Meta bugreport proposal
Hi, I think we need a specification to allow users to report websites bugs from their browser. That's why i think it could be usefull to add a meta markup like this : meta name=bugreport content=(uri) / The uri could be : - mailto: to send a report by mail (ex: mailto:webmas...@example.org) - http: to send the bug report a a simple HTTP POST request (ex: http://example.org/bugreport). - bug: something more customizable to allow webmasters to fit bug reports with their systems (ex: bug:http?uri=/bug.datmethod=POSTcaptcha=/captcha.jpg ) - etc (ws:, irc: ...) In order to test this i just made a Chrome extension illustrating how browsers could handle this meta markup : https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bugmeback/hgmagcomobmjhaomdoihiggpdekaehmg The code is there : https://github.com/nfroidure/BugMeBack Are you interested in that kind of approach for bug reporting ? Have a nice day Nicolas Froidure. @nfroidure
Re: [whatwg] Meta bugreport proposal
On 2012-10-31 10:21, Nicolas Froidure wrote: Hi, I think we need a specification to allow users to report websites bugs from their browser. That's why i think it could be usefull to add a meta markup like this : meta name=bugreport content=(uri) / link, not meta. The uri could be : - mailto: to send a report by mail (ex: mailto:webmas...@example.org) - http: to send the bug report a a simple HTTP POST request (ex: http://example.org/bugreport). - bug: something more customizable to allow webmasters to fit bug reports with their systems (ex: bug:http?uri=/bug.datmethod=POSTcaptcha=/captcha.jpg ) What's the use case for this? Do you want to automate bug submission? What for? ... Best regards, Julian
Re: [whatwg] Meta bugreport proposal
On 31/10/2012 10:55, Julian Reschke wrote: On 2012-10-31 10:21, Nicolas Froidure wrote: Hi, I think we need a specification to allow users to report websites bugs from their browser. That's why i think it could be usefull to add a meta markup like this : meta name=bugreport content=(uri) / link, not meta. Indeed it seems better The uri could be : - mailto: to send a report by mail (ex: mailto:webmas...@example.org) - http: to send the bug report a a simple HTTP POST request (ex: http://example.org/bugreport). - bug: something more customizable to allow webmasters to fit bug reports with their systems (ex: bug:http?uri=/bug.datmethod=POSTcaptcha=/captcha.jpg ) What's the use case for this? Do you want to automate bug submission? What for? The main advantage of bug submissions inside the browser is the ability to retrieve a lot of informations automatically that you can't get inside a web page context. By exemple, in the extension : - a screenshot of the page - the content of the javascript error console - the uri, the window size, the user agent All technical datas a normal user don't know. The main reason is to get a better web by catching better feedback. ... Best regards, Julian
Re: [whatwg] Meta bugreport proposal
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Nicolas Froidure wrote: I think we need a specification to allow users to report websites bugs from their browser. That's why i think it could be usefull to add a meta markup like this : meta name=bugreport content=(uri) / The uri could be : - mailto: to send a report by mail (ex: mailto:webmas...@example.org) - http: to send the bug report a a simple HTTP POST request (ex: http://example.org/bugreport). - bug: something more customizable to allow webmasters to fit bug reports with their systems (ex: bug:http?uri=/bug.datmethod=POSTcaptcha=/captcha.jpg ) - etc (ws:, irc: ...) In order to test this i just made a Chrome extension illustrating how browsers could handle this meta markup : https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bugmeback/hgmagcomobmjhaomdoihiggpdekaehmg The code is there : https://github.com/nfroidure/BugMeBack Are you interested in that kind of approach for bug reporting ? This seems interesting. My recommendation would be to continue developing the extension, and to try to convince browser vendors and site owners that this is a good feature to expose. If there is momentum behind a feature such as this, it is much easier to push it into a spec. See also: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_a_specification.3F On Wed, 31 Oct 2012, Julian Reschke wrote: link, not meta. Indeed. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
