Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2012-04-02 Thread Ian Hickson
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2012-04-02 Thread Ian Hickson
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-10-29 Thread Robin Berjon
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-10-07 Thread Arthur Barstow
[ + 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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-10-07 Thread Rich Tibbett
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-10-04 Thread イアンフェッティ
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-29 Thread Adrienne Porter Felt
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-29 Thread Paul Kinlan
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-29 Thread Charles Pritchard
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-25 Thread Charles McCathieNevile
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-25 Thread John J Barton
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-23 Thread Ian Hickson
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.

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-23 Thread Julian Reschke
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-23 Thread Boris Zbarsky
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-23 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
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,

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-23 Thread Julian Reschke
On 2011-09-23 22:25, Boris Zbarsky wrote: 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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-23 Thread Boris Zbarsky
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-23 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-23 Thread Charles Pritchard
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-22 Thread Henri Sivonen
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

Deconstructing Intents was, Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-22 Thread Charles Pritchard
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-22 Thread Ian Hickson
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-22 Thread James Hawkins
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-22 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-22 Thread Charles Pritchard
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-22 Thread John J Barton
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-21 Thread Ms2ger
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.

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread Rich Tibbett
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread イアンフェッティ
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread Robin Berjon
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.

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread イアンフェッティ
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread Robin Berjon
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread Charles Pritchard
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread Robin Berjon
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,

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread Charles Pritchard
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.

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread イアンフェッティ
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread Marcos Caceres
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread イアンフェッティ
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 ,

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread Marcos Caceres
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread イアンフェッティ
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread Paul Kinlan
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread James Hawkins
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread Robin Berjon
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann
* 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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread Ian Hickson
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-20 Thread Paul Kinlan
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?

Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-19 Thread イアンフェッティ
Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables To: public-webapps@w3.org I am the tech lead for the team designing and implementing Web Intents [1] for Chrome at Google. Web Intents is a web platform feature modeled after the similarly named feature in Android OS. Web Intents enables client sites to request

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-19 Thread Ian Hickson
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-19 Thread Charles Pritchard
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

Re: Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-19 Thread James Hawkins
+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

Adding Web Intents to the Webapps WG deliverables

2011-09-19 Thread James Hawkins
I am the tech lead for the team designing and implementing Web Intents [1] for Chrome at Google. Web Intents is a web platform feature modeled after the similarly named feature in Android OS. Web Intents enables client sites to request high-level functionality, e.g. share, edit, pick, upload,