gt;> à“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?” Asking the user
>> what sense of a given protocol? Are you saying we can’t a
t sense of a given
> protocol? Are you saying we can’t ask users what apps they want to have
> handle various actions? If so, we do this all the time, in every OS on the
> planet, and I wouldn’t say that simple process is error prone. Maybe I am
> misunderstanding you?
>
>
>
> -
hoplahup.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 9:38 AM
To: Daniel Buchner <mailto:dabuc...@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org<mailto:public-webapps@w3.org>
Subject: Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling
Daniel,
as far as I can read the post, copy-and-paste-in
t;
>
>
> *From:*Paul Libbrecht [mailto:p...@hoplahup.net]
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 18, 2015 9:38 AM
> *To:* Daniel Buchner
> *Cc:* public-webapps@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling
>
>
>
> Daniel,
>
> as far
isunderstanding
you?
- Daniel
From: Paul Libbrecht [mailto:p...@hoplahup.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 9:38 AM
To: Daniel Buchner
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling
Daniel,
as far as I can read the post, copy-and-paste-interoperabi
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
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/w
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 maili
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 we
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
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
Le 17/10/2015 17:58, Chaals McCathie Nevile a écrit :
> Aymeric, that could apply to you to - and in fact the requirement to
> behave courteously is a general one for this list and others of the Web
> Platform WG
Replying only to this for now, you don't know what you are talking about
and don't
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
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 16:19:17 +0200, Anders Rundgren
wrote:
On 2015-10-16 18:00, Aymeric Vitte wrote:
Well, since I was on the list, I took the liberty of commenting a bit on
this.
Please work on being more civil and constructive when you do. (Aymeric,
that could apply to you to - and i
On 2015-10-16 18:00, Aymeric Vitte wrote:
Well, since I was on the list, I took the liberty of commenting a bit on this.
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.
Regarding App-to-A
Ccing the authors of [1], [2] and [3] if there is still an interest.
>
> at this stage we don't have a deliverable for this work - i.e. the W3C
> members haven't approved doing something like this in Web Platform working
> group. Given that people repeatedly attempt to do it, I think the
> conver
Daniel
From: Samsung account [mailto:bnw6...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:26 AM
To: Arthur Barstow
Cc: Daniel Buchner ; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling
2015/10/15 下午11:58於 "Arthur Barstow&
: Daniel Buchner ; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling
2015/10/15 下午11:58於 "Arthur Barstow"
mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com>>寫道：
>
> On 10/14/15 12:33 PM, Daniel Buchner wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey WebAppers,
On 10/14/15 12:33 PM, Daniel Buchner wrote:
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-t
19 matches
Mail list logo
