Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

I'd like to request that people stop sending posts about web intents to public-webapps@w3.org and public-device-a...@w3.org The new list exists and should be used: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2011Nov/ On 11/18/11, Charles Pritchard wrote: > On 11/18/11 10:29 AM, Paul

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

On 11/18/11 10:29 AM, Paul Kinlan wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Charles Pritchard > wrote: On 11/18/11 1:40 AM, Paul Kinlan wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Greg Billock mailto:gbill...@google.com>> wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 a

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > ** > On 11/18/11 1:40 AM, Paul Kinlan wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Greg Billock wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: >> >>> As far as I can tell, the model doesn't prohibit, nor does

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

On 11/18/11 1:40 AM, Paul Kinlan wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Greg Billock > wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Charles Pritchard mailto:ch...@jumis.com>> wrote: As far as I can tell, the model doesn't prohibit, nor does it

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:15 AM, Greg Billock wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > >> ** >> Does anybody use registerProtocolHandler in any real sense? Is >> registerContentHandler needed? It seems like Web Intents is an evolution on >> the concept. I don't think w

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > ** > Does anybody use registerProtocolHandler in any real sense? Is > registerContentHandler needed? It seems like Web Intents is an evolution on > the concept. I don't think we're going to see convergence on those old > methods. I'm rea

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

On 15/11/11 20:46, Paul Kinlan wrote: This is the way that I have implemented it in test apps. It is the handler app that will show the progress information. I have not had a case yet where the client app needs or is concerned about the progress of the action that is being handled, other than

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

This is the way that I have implemented it in test apps. It is the handler app that will show the progress information. I have not had a case yet where the client app needs or is concerned about the progress of the action that is being handled, other than on completion or on error. I will launch

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

Since we don't have background intents (many reasons why, though we looked into the idea), the service is responsible for displaying progress UI for this use case. For example imagine the service is Dropbox: the client initiates the upload action and Dropbox is selected as the service by the user.

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

Yes, that works in my mind. -Charles On 11/15/11 12:36 PM, James Hawkins wrote: Since we don't have background intents (many reasons why, though we looked into the idea), the service is responsible for displaying progress UI for this use case. For example imagine the service is Dropbox: the cl

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

http://usecases.webintents.org/ Though admittedly it's not complete, and we need to update the site with a list of use cases we've rejected. On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Josh Soref wrote: > James wrote: >> A bit of back story: when designing and iterating the API, we focused heavily >> on u

RE: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

James wrote: > A bit of back story: when designing and iterating the API, we focused heavily > on use cases. We were unable to come up with a compelling > (enough) use case for handling progress notifications, though the use cases we > did have allowed us to think of ways to modify the API to sup

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

I may be misunderstanding things, but I was thinking that saving a file to the cloud. FileSaver and XHR have onprogress events so users don't wonder too-much about large file uploads. Those are the only cases I was thinking of. -Charles On 11/15/2011 10:31 AM, James Hawkins wrote: A bit of

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

A bit of back story: when designing and iterating the API, we focused heavily on use cases. We were unable to come up with a compelling (enough) use case for handling progress notifications, though the use cases we did have allowed us to think of ways to modify the API to support those use cases (

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

So, to make things difficult again -- how do we monitor progress? When I'm saving to the cloud, I want my XHR onprogress. I don't need high-fidelity progress events -- they don't even make sense when one server is copying to another, but I do need something, otherwise we're back in the dark ages

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

On 11/13/11 3:18 PM, Paul Kinlan wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Charles Pritchard > wrote: On 11/10/11 3:10 PM, Greg Billock wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Rich Tibbett mailto:ri...@opera.com>> wrote: Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrot

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

On the subject of FileSaver, specifically window.saveAs, I have demos that show use of "http://webintents.org/save"; intent which fits work very well and it would be up to the UA to decide if they want to offer an interface for access to the local fileSystem. So it could either be a cloud or local

Re: Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

Hi, CIL On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > ** > On 11/10/11 3:10 PM, Greg Billock wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Rich Tibbett wrote: > >> Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: >> >>> Le jeudi 10 novembre 2011 à 16:27 +0100, Rich Tibbett a écrit : >>>

Web Messaging Intents, was: Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

On 11/10/11 3:10 PM, Greg Billock wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Rich Tibbett > wrote: Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: Le jeudi 10 novembre 2011 à 16:27 +0100, Rich Tibbett a écrit : Hi a.) to register a URL endpoint as a