4 ms·

We tried this pretty early on. I feel like it is bastardisation of the meta tag to add information that is needed by the system to register an intent, we can't

by kinlan 15y ago

We tried this pretty early on. I feel like it is bastardisation of the meta tag to add information that is needed by the system to register an intent, we can't add new attributes just for intents. Then if you have to have it span across multiple tags it is a nightmare to manage for developers. If you don't span across multiple tags you have to have a special encoding inside the meta tag to describe the intent, which again is massively frustrating for developers. How would you specify an intent through the meta tag?

nikcub 15y ago
it might be a bastardization of meta, but there must be a way to stuff this metadata into the existing structures, possibly even HTTP headers (I remember RSS auto-discovery going through a similar development process.). my initial thought was: <meta property="app:type" content="image/jpg,img/gif" > <meta property="app:handler" content="open" > and use canonical as the href. you can have multiple handler types, which are standard types, and then handers are actions the concern that I have is that with the types this is just file extensions being moved to the web and all the problems that caused in desktop computing. ie. associating applications with file types. but you are saying that there is no default handler, that you get something more akin to an 'open with' which lists the applications that can handle that type can you email me (email in profile) to discuss further, or is there a mailing list? I am interested in this area and have seen a number of 'web app/widget discovery' initiatives over the years but none really took off (edit: code didn't show up)
- gbhn 15y ago
  I've talked with Paul a bit about this. We've also mocked up using link tags, which carry a bit more metadata. Probably the most promising approach, though, is using other webapp manifest ideas to bundle intent provider installation with that. (a la http://lwn.net/Articles/419151/ http://lwn.net/Articles/419151/)
  - groby_b 15y ago
    Not a huge fan of the link tag. It's mutated by now into the "this is somewhat related to this page, somehow" tag. (I mean, seriously, rel="sidebar"?) I'd think in terms of semantics, the <embed> tag is more appropriate. If you want to re-use existing tags at all, that is.

by kinlan 15y ago

nikcub 15y ago

it might be a bastardization of meta, but there must be a way to stuff this metadata into the existing structures, possibly even HTTP headers (I remember RSS auto-discovery going through a similar development process.). my initial thought was: <meta property="app:type" content="image/jpg,img/gif" > <meta property="app:handler" content="open" > and use canonical as the href. you can have multiple handler types, which are standard types, and then handers are actions the concern that I have is that with the types this is just file extensions being moved to the web and all the problems that caused in desktop computing. ie. associating applications with file types. but you are saying that there is no default handler, that you get something more akin to an 'open with' which lists the applications that can handle that type can you email me (email in profile) to discuss further, or is there a mailing list? I am interested in this area and have seen a number of 'web app/widget discovery' initiatives over the years but none really took off (edit: code didn't show up)

gbhn 15y ago
I've talked with Paul a bit about this. We've also mocked up using link tags, which carry a bit more metadata. Probably the most promising approach, though, is using other webapp manifest ideas to bundle intent provider installation with that. (a la http://lwn.net/Articles/419151/ http://lwn.net/Articles/419151/)
- groby_b 15y ago
  Not a huge fan of the link tag. It's mutated by now into the "this is somewhat related to this page, somehow" tag. (I mean, seriously, rel="sidebar"?) I'd think in terms of semantics, the <embed> tag is more appropriate. If you want to re-use existing tags at all, that is.