Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling

[Anders Rundgren]

On 2015-10-18 19:09, Aymeric Vitte wrote:



Le 17/10/2015 16:19, Anders Rundgren a écrit :

Unless you work for a browser vendor or is generally "recognized" for some
specialty, nothing seems to be of enough interest to even get briefly
evaluated.



Right, that's a deficiency of the W3C/WHATWG/whatever specs process,
where people well seated in their big companies/org comfortable chairs
lack imagination, innovation, are very long to produce anything and just
spec for themselves things that become obsolete as soon as they have
released it, or things that just never match the reality and general use
cases, and they generally disconsider other opinions, although they
recognize usually at the end that they messed up, then they respecc it
and the loop starts again.


Regarding App-to-App interaction I'm personally mainly into the
Web-to-Native variant.


That's a very poor system, I think you are still in your long never
ending quest of seeking for "something in the web that could match what
you want to do" but probably it's not that one.

Do people here mean that we are going forever to exchange text, images,
files, stuff like this only?

That's the vision?


I can't speak for people here in general but my vision (FWIW) is already
fairly well in place:

https://test.webpki.org/webpay-merchant

Yes, the are some folks who claim that this will eventually be possible doing
with "pure" Web tech but maybe the market doesn't care that much about purity?
Particularly not if it takes 5-10 years to achieve.  Too little too late.

One doesn't have to think very hard to realize that Apple and Google won't
build wallets for iOS and Android respectively and then build another set
for the Web.  It would be a very confusing user-experience, poor use of
development resources etc.

Note: wallets i just one app among many.

Anders


Can't we share Web Components? Which can be any app with the possibility
to interact with it?

That's what for example the Web Intents should do, again you should not
close the group.

Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling

[Aymeric Vitte]

Please stop on your side giving lessons again and stop trying to
isolate/elude my initial answer, and refrain people on this list not to
be insulting first.

This one was not insulting, just a general consideration and you should
consider it.

But indeed, back to the "in-scope" technical discussion copied below,
waiting for comments, unless you cut it or try to distract it again.

"
This approach [1] and [2] looks quite good, simple and can cover all cases.

I don't know if we can call it a Web Component really for all cases but
let's call it as such.

In [2] examples the Bio component could be extracted to be passed to the
editor for example and/or could be shared on fb, and idem from fb be
edited, shared, etc

Or let's imagine that I am a 0 in web programming and even Web
Components are too complicate for me, I put an empty Google map and
edit/customize it via a Google map editor, there is [3] maybe too but
anyway the use cases are legions.

The Intent service would then be a visible or a silent Web Component
discussing with the Intent client using postMessage.

Maybe the process could  be instanciated with something specific in href
(as suggested in [2] again) but an Intent object still looks mandatory.

But in case of visible Intent service, the pop-up style looks very ugly
and old, something should be modified so it seems to appear in the
calling page, then the Intent service needs to have the possibility to
become invisible (after login for example).

I don't see any technical difficulty to spec and implement this (except
maybe how to avoid the horrible pop-up effect) and this covers everything."



Le 18/10/2015 20:49, Chaals McCathie Nevile a écrit :
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:09:42 +0200, Aymeric Vitte
>  wrote:
> 
>> Le 17/10/2015 16:19, Anders Rundgren a écrit :
>>> Unless you work for a browser vendor or is generally "recognized" for
>>> some specialty, nothing seems to be of enough interest to even get
>>> briefly evaluated.
>>>
>>
>> Right, that's a deficiency of the W3C/WHATWG/whatever specs process,
>> where people well seated in their big companies/org comfortable chairs
>> lack imagination, innovation, are very long to produce anything and just
>> spec for themselves things that become obsolete as soon as they have
>> released it, or things that just never match the reality and general use
>> cases, and they generally disconsider other opinions, although they
>> recognize usually at the end that they messed up, then they respecc it
>> and the loop starts again.
> 
> To be clear, this is a clear example of the lack of civility that I
> referred to earlier, which is inappropriate as noted in the Workmode
> document: https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/blob/gh-pages/WorkMode.md
> 
> Please refrain from insulting people (whether individually or as a
> group), and stick to in-scope technical discussion.
> 
> For the chairs
> 
> Chaals
> 

-- 
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms

Re: Making progress with items in Web Platform Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling

[Chaals McCathie Nevile]

Offlist.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 19:36:54 +0200, Anders Rundgren
 wrote:


On 2015-10-17 17:58, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote:


Regarding App-to-App interaction I'm personally mainly into the
Web-to-Native variant.


As I already pointed out to Daniel, this stuff is not in the current  
scope

of the group, and you should work on it in the context of e.g. the Web
Incubator Community Group, where it is relevant to their scope.


As I wrote, this particular feature is already in Chrome and is now  
being implemented by Microsoft and Mozilla.


That doesn't make it part of the current scope of the group.

It is therefore off-topic, and having been asked to take the discussion
where it is in scope, please refrain from continuing it on webapps.

cheers

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
   cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling

[Paul Libbrecht]

Daniel,

as far as I can read the post, copy-and-paste-interoperability would be
a "sub-task" of this.
It's not a very small task though.
In my world, E.g., there was a person who inventend a "math" protocol
handler. For him it meant that formulæ be read out loud (because his
mission is making the web accessible to people with disabilities
including eyes) but clearly there was no way to bring a different target.

Somehow, I can't really be convinced by such a post except asking the
user what is the sense of a given flavour or even protocol handler
which, as we know, is kind of error-prone. Agree?

paul

PS: I'm still struggling for the geo URL scheme to be properly handled
but it works for me in a very very tiny spectrum of apps (GMaps >
Hand-edited-HTML-in-Mails-through-Postbox > Blackberry Hub > Osmand).
This is certainly a good example of difficult sequence of choices.

> Daniel Buchner 
> 14 octobre 2015 18:33
>
> Hey WebAppers,
>
>  
>
> Just ran into this dragon for the 1,326^th time, so thought I would do
> a write-up to rekindle discussion on this important area of developer
> need the platform currently fails to address:
> http://www.backalleycoder.com/2015/10/13/app-to-app-interaction-apis/.
> We have existing APIs/specs that get relatively close, and my first
> instinct would be to leverage those and extend their capabilities to
> cover the broader family of use-cases highlighted in the post.
>
>  
>
> I welcome your ideas, feedback, and commentary,
>
>  
>
> - Daniel
>

Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling

[Aymeric Vitte]

Le 17/10/2015 16:19, Anders Rundgren a écrit :
> Unless you work for a browser vendor or is generally "recognized" for some
> specialty, nothing seems to be of enough interest to even get briefly
> evaluated.
> 

Right, that's a deficiency of the W3C/WHATWG/whatever specs process,
where people well seated in their big companies/org comfortable chairs
lack imagination, innovation, are very long to produce anything and just
spec for themselves things that become obsolete as soon as they have
released it, or things that just never match the reality and general use
cases, and they generally disconsider other opinions, although they
recognize usually at the end that they messed up, then they respecc it
and the loop starts again.

> Regarding App-to-App interaction I'm personally mainly into the
> Web-to-Native variant.

That's a very poor system, I think you are still in your long never
ending quest of seeking for "something in the web that could match what
you want to do" but probably it's not that one.

Do people here mean that we are going forever to exchange text, images,
files, stuff like this only?

That's the vision?

Can't we share Web Components? Which can be any app with the possibility
to interact with it?

That's what for example the Web Intents should do, again you should not
close the group.

-- 
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms

Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling

[Paul Libbrecht]

Anders Rundgren wrote:
> Unless you work for a browser vendor or is generally "recognized" for
> some
> specialty, nothing seems to be of enough interest to even get briefly
> evaluated. 
Maybe the right thing is assemble "user representative" groups and be
enough heard on such places as this mailing list?

However, the problem with a question as the one of this thread is that
the answers can be hugely multi-facetted.

I do believe that the W3C process is sufficiently open to let each user
speak out loud and be heard on this mailing list (public-webapps@w3.org)
even if there are side actions trying to make things more friendly (such
as the WhatWG) or there are people believing that the W3C is too much
corporations oriented.

paul