On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, James Hawkins wrote:
But this is a non-problem. In practice, we have plenty of examples of
spaces where conflicts don't happen despite not having used long names
such as URLs. For example:
- rel= values in HTML
- element names in HTML
- MIME type names
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, John J Barton wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
There's no difference between two people coming up with the name foo
and two people coming up with the name http://webintents.org/foo;,
unless you're saying you're confident that
On Sep 20, 2011, at 19:09 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
If you can guarantee me that the other browsers will join DAP then let's talk
(namely MSFT who just announced a similar spec for Metro, and it would be
very important to get their input here.)
Wish granted! Let's talk then.
--
Robin
[ + DAPI Chairs and Team Contact ]
Hi Ian, All - for now, I think it is OK to use public-webapps for
*technical* discussions regarding James' proposal.
Let's plan to continue the charter-related part of this discussion
during WebApp's TPAC meeting. I added it to the Monday October 31
Arthur Barstow wrote:
[ + DAPI Chairs and Team Contact ]
Hi Ian, All - for now, I think it is OK to use public-webapps for
*technical* discussions regarding James' proposal.
Let's plan to continue the charter-related part of this discussion
during WebApp's TPAC meeting. I added it to the
Circling back to the original topic, it seems like there's a good amount of
interest and opinions, and that the spec would probably benefit from the
input of the people in this WG, especially since multiple platforms are all
shipping something similar in approach (android intents, contracts in
Android developers chronically misunderstand and misuse Android Intents, and
these mistakes lead to security bugs. To illustrate how prevalent the
confusion is, Erika Chin and I found that 9 of 20 popular Android
apps (45%!) contain security vulnerabilities due to misusing Intents. I've
also
Hi,
Thanks for the synopsis of the issues. We didn't want to specifically
exclude it from intra-app communication, but the result is like you mention
actions can be invoked that they might not have thought would be possible or
apps can replace - currently the system requires user intervention to
Top posting: in web messaging, we typically set an origin property on events
and authors are expected to check that property.
Are your concerns addressed by that practice?
It is an added step, an added nuance. And developers may neglect it. But, if
they are neglecting origin, they are just
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:04:29 +0200, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)
ife...@google.com wrote:
With all due respect, I think that if we have to re-charter or create a
new working group each time a new API comes up we are all doomed. The
overhead of creating and monitoring so many WGs is not appealing to
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
There's no difference between two people coming up with the name foo and
two people coming up with the name http://webintents.org/foo;, unless
you're saying you're confident that people won't use the prefix the spec
uses for its
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, John J Barton wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
I don't see why. Just have a wiki page that people can list their verbs on
and then point to their documentation.
I agree here. The standard is sufficient for stewardship.
On 2011-09-23 01:40, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:28 PM, James Hawkinsjhawk...@google.com wrote:
When designing the format of the Web Intents action string, we got a lot of
feedback that the java namespacing is not native to the web and that URLS
would be a better
On 9/23/11 4:13 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Contrary to what you say, I don't see anybody confused by URI comparison
when URIs are used as identifiers.
If I had $1 for every time I wrote xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/;
and $10 for every time I told someone their page was broken because
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
There's a decent chance that all of these are considered the same
url by devs, and devs will probably attempt to use them. I haven't
even mentioned yet the presence/absence of www in urls.
Contrary to what you say,
On 9/23/11 5:20 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
If I had $1 for every time I wrote xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/;
and $10 for every time I told someone their page was broken because
they'd done that, I'd get myself a vacation package...
Namespace names are things I copy from templates and
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
Namespace names are things I copy from templates and never type from memory.
Exactly, which means namespaces aren't memorable. The only reason to
give up memorability is if you require the name to be both
On 9/23/11 2:47 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Julian Reschkejulian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
Namespace names are things I copy from templates and never type from memory.
Exactly, which means namespaces aren't memorable. The only reason to
give up memorability is if
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Why not just improve both navigator.registerContentHandler and
navigator.registerProtocolHandler?
In particular, why are intents registered via a new HTML element rather
than an API?
Web Activities addresses this problem space
On 9/20/2011 10:27 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
While issuing a ton of patent exclusions for something like this would be
rather poor, I would frankly rather have that then a spec that doesn't get any
attention from a party
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Paul Kinlan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Paul Kinlan wrote:
Q: Why are the verbs URLs?
Verbs don't have to be URL's but a URL will allow us a point of
reference to documentation, versioning and namespacing allowing
verbs with similar names but by a
Hey Ian, comments in-line.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Paul Kinlan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Paul Kinlan wrote:
Q: Why are the verbs URLs?
Verbs don't have to be URL's but a URL will allow us a point of
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:28 PM, James Hawkins jhawk...@google.com wrote:
When designing the format of the Web Intents action string, we got a lot of
feedback that the java namespacing is not native to the web and that URLS
would be a better namespacing scheme. This gave us the added benefit
On 9/22/2011 2:36 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Paul Kinlan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Paul Kinlan wrote:
Q: Why are the verbs URLs?
Verbs don't have to be URL's but a URL will allow us a point of
reference to documentation, versioning and namespacing allowing
verbs with
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
I don't see why. Just have a wiki page that people can list their verbs on
and then point to their documentation.
I agree here. The standard is sufficient for stewardship.
Why won't I create a bot that fills with wiki
On 09/20/2011 11:27 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
with the Web Applications Working Group, which after six years has a
XMLHttpRequest test suite consisting of nothing but There is a good
chance a test suite for XMLHttpRequest will be placed around here and
no XMLHttpRequest specification to show.
Ian Hickson wrote:
Why not just improve both navigator.registerContentHandler and
navigator.registerProtocolHandler?
http://groups.google.com/group/web-intents/browse_thread/thread/3dff7c2cdf5815b8
I tend to agree with rolling this in to RCH and RPH and seeing if we
could refine the
With all due respect, I think that if we have to re-charter or create a new
working group each time a new API comes up we are all doomed. The overhead
of creating and monitoring so many WGs is not appealing to many of us.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Hi
Hi Ian,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 16:04 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
With all due respect, I think that if we have to re-charter or create a new
working group each time a new API comes up we are all doomed. The overhead of
creating and monitoring so many WGs is not appealing to many of us.
I don't get it. The overhead of getting all the other browsers to join the
WG you mention is just as high, especially when there's no indication that a
number of browsers intend to join that group. I don't think it's a random
process question, I think it's rather fundamental issue. If we agree
Hi Ian!
On Sep 20, 2011, at 16:26 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
I don't get it. The overhead of getting all the other browsers to join the WG
you mention is just as high
Can you please detail what overhead that involves? There are only two cases
here:
• You have IP concerns relevant to
On 9/20/2011 7:55 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
Hi Ian!
On Sep 20, 2011, at 16:26 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
I don't get it. The overhead of getting all the other browsers to join the WG
you mention is just as high
Can you please detail what overhead that involves? There are only two cases
Hi Charles,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:15 , Charles Pritchard wrote:
There is certainly some overlap between DAP and WebApps. Is that the issue
here, Robin?
If you ask me, there isn't any issue at all :) James suggested that WebApps
take over Intents. Since it isn't in WebApps's deliverables,
On 9/20/2011 8:57 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
Hi Charles,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:15 , Charles Pritchard wrote:
There is certainly some overlap between DAP and WebApps. Is that the issue
here, Robin?
If you ask me, there isn't any issue at all :) James suggested that WebApps
take over Intents.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Hi Charles,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:15 , Charles Pritchard wrote:
There is certainly some overlap between DAP and WebApps. Is that the
issue here, Robin?
If you ask me, there isn't any issue at all :) James suggested
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com
(mailto:ro...@berjon.com) wrote:
Hi Charles,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:15 , Charles Pritchard wrote:
There is certainly some overlap between DAP and
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com (mailto:
ro...@berjon.com) wrote:
Hi Charles,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 17:15 ,
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
While issuing a ton of patent exclusions for something like this would be
rather poor, I would frankly rather have that then a spec that doesn't get
any attention from a party that's clearly relevant only to have patents
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
While issuing a ton of patent exclusions for something like this would be
rather poor, I would frankly rather have that then a spec that doesn't get
Hi Ian,
Here are some answers, I have worked closely with the team on getting this
ready so if I miss anything out they will be able to fill in the blanks.
Q: Why are the verbs URLs?
Verbs don't have to be URL's but a URL will allow us a point of reference to
documentation, versioning and
Hi Robin,
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Hi Ian!
On Sep 20, 2011, at 16:26 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
I don't get it. The overhead of getting all the other browsers to join
the WG you mention is just as high
Can you please detail what overhead
HI Ian,
On Sep 20, 2011, at 19:38 , Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
Why do we need to recharter? I don't get the point of having a WG that has to
recharter every single time that we develop a new API.
I can't begin to tell you how sympathetic I am to this feeling, and the
frustration that goes
* Ian Fette wrote:
I don't get it. The overhead of getting all the other browsers to join the
WG you mention is just as high, especially when there's no indication that a
number of browsers intend to join that group. I don't think it's a random
process question, I think it's rather fundamental
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Rich Tibbett wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Why not just improve both navigator.registerContentHandler and
navigator.registerProtocolHandler?
http://groups.google.com/group/web-intents/browse_thread/thread/3dff7c2cdf5815b8
I tend to agree with rolling this in to RCH and
Some comments inline - I hope they don't get lost.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Rich Tibbett wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Why not just improve both navigator.registerContentHandler and
navigator.registerProtocolHandler?
Why not just improve both navigator.registerContentHandler and
navigator.registerProtocolHandler?
In particular, why are intents registered via a new HTML element rather
than an API? How do you unregister? How do you determine if the intent was
registered or not? How do you conditionally
Should Paul Kinlan be Cc'd on this? His concept work is helpful.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Why not just improve both navigator.registerContentHandler and
navigator.registerProtocolHandler?
In particular, why are intents registered via a new HTML
+Paul Kinlan, Greg Billock - from Google team.
+Mike Hanson, Ben Adida - from Mozilla team.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
Should Paul Kinlan be Cc'd on this? His concept work is helpful.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch
48 matches
Mail list logo
