Re: Making progress with items in Web Platform Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling
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: Making progress with items in Web Platform Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling
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 try to give lessons about things you don't know, courtesy is something that other people should learn on this list. And don't change the initial subject of this thread or open a new one. But don't worry, unlike other people on this list, I will always remain polite. Now, please discontinue this thread and let's talk the original one. I would like to know what inspired W3C folks think about what I wrote, this is short but everything is in there. -- 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
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. Anders chaals, for the chairs. Here the browser vendors have reportedly [1,2] decided to implement Google's Native Messaging API "as is" without any discussions in related W3C forums, something they will surely regret because it has a long list of shortcomings, ranging from a difficult deployment scheme to limited functionality and performance issues, not to mention a highly deficient security model: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2015Oct/0071.html That the browsers vendors have gotten major push-backs after removing their previous extension schemes (NPAPI, ActiveX) is obvious, but that doesn't motivate rushing into crude workarounds: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-paves-over-hole-left-by-chrome-plug-in-ban/ Anders 1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions#Additional_APIs 2] http://www.slashgear.com/project-spartan-is-now-edge-and-will-have-chrome-extensions-29381422/ 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 conversation is worth having. Personally I think this is something the Web needs Indeed, that will be more than time to do so, but the current view of the main actors or past specs seems a kind of narrowed and not very imaginative/innovative, I don't think you should close the web intents task force [5] but restart it on new bases. 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. That's incredible that nobody can see this and that [1] did not get any echo (this comment I especially dedicate it to some people that will recognize themselves about some inappropriate comments, not to say more, they made regarding the subject related to the last paragraph of this post). 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. If that happens the next step is to change our charter. That is an administrative thing that takes a few weeks (largely to ensure we get the IPR protection W3C standards can enjoy, which happens because we spend the time to do the admin with legal processes) if there is some broad-based support. Unfortunately, despite of our efforts and patience, due to the lack of agreement on this matter with the related W3C members, unless people decide to restrict Intents to some trivial edit, share uses of simple images, text, files, which looks quite limited (but surprisingly seems enough for Microsoft, Mozilla and Google) and will necessarily end-up redoing the spec again several years later, the specs will inevitably cross again the path of the patent you know [4], for parts related to the extraction mechanisms that time, which anyway the web will one day implement. [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2014Oct/0001.html [2] http://dev.mygrid.org.uk/blog/2014/10/you-want-to-do-what-theres-an-app-for-that/ [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2015Feb/ [4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2015AprJun/0911.html [5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2015Oct/.html
Making progress with items in Web Platform Re: App-to-App interaction APIs - one more time, with feeling
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 in fact the requirement to behave courteously is a general one for this list and others of the Web Platform WG). 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. I think you are misinterpreting your personal experience. It is true that if you can demonstrate likely uptake on a broad scale, you will get a lot more enthusiasm than if you have an idea that you just think would help you. Browsers are among those who, by their nature, are more readily able to offer broad uptake. Major content producers likewise can do so, or those who make stuff that has a broad developer or user community involved. An example of the latter are the developers of editing software. Most of those are very small, but they have a very large user community. Consequently, they have managed to engage the browser development community, and currently it seems that the discussions about rich-text editing in HTML, while complex and likely to take a long time, are very much worthwhile. Meanwhile, even proposals I make as both a chair and the representative of a browser vendor (albeit a relatively unknown one outside Russia) stand or fall on the merits which include not only technical soundness but apparent likelihood of adoption on the Web. 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. chaals, for the chairs. Here the browser vendors have reportedly [1,2] decided to implement Google's Native Messaging API "as is" without any discussions in related W3C forums, something they will surely regret because it has a long list of shortcomings, ranging from a difficult deployment scheme to limited functionality and performance issues, not to mention a highly deficient security model: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2015Oct/0071.html That the browsers vendors have gotten major push-backs after removing their previous extension schemes (NPAPI, ActiveX) is obvious, but that doesn't motivate rushing into crude workarounds: http://www.cnet.com/news/google-paves-over-hole-left-by-chrome-plug-in-ban/ Anders 1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions#Additional_APIs 2] http://www.slashgear.com/project-spartan-is-now-edge-and-will-have-chrome-extensions-29381422/ 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 conversation is worth having. Personally I think this is something the Web needs Indeed, that will be more than time to do so, but the current view of the main actors or past specs seems a kind of narrowed and not very imaginative/innovative, I don't think you should close the web intents task force [5] but restart it on new bases. 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. That's incredible that nobody can see this and that [1] did not get any echo (this comment I especially dedicate it to some people that will recognize themselves about some inappropriate comments, not to say more, they made regarding the subject related to the last paragraph of this post). 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
