3 ms·

It seems like there should be an even simpler way to create an intent link than with a form. Something like <a action="http://webintents.org/share" type

It seems like there should be an even simpler way to create an intent link than with a form. Something like <a action="http://webintents.org/share" type="text/uri-list" data="http://kittens.com">Share Me!</a> Presumably browsers would also be at leisure to provide access to intents in their native interface, like a share button right on the toolbar. The intent choosing UI is a thorny issue. I dislike forcing the user to respond to install dialogs or limiting them to intents they have previously installed. I think my ideal browser would silently remember all the intents it has seen. When it needs me to choose one, it shows me a list of candidates I have used before (as intents), padded to some pleasant length by candidates most often visited (directly). If not all candidates fit, a "More..." option expands the list to completion. Some sites will want to be certain that intents they invoke can be handled by all users. So, maybe they should be able to suggest some services to be appended to the user's (possibly empty) list. Making the action field a URI could create some interesting politics. I can imagine the action space being fragmented along company lines e.g. http://facebook.com/like http://facebook.com/like vs http://google.com/plusone http://google.com/plusone vs http://twitter.com/tweet http://twitter.com/tweet etc. A flat namespace might encourage more reuse of actions and less creation of new ones. But maybe I'm just being paranoid.

masklinn 15y ago
You don't even need to add attributes for the core behavior: <a href="http://webintents.org/share?type=text%2Furi-list&data=http%3A%2F%2Fkittens.com">Share Me!</a> Add a microformat/microdata attribute to provide a browser hint if desired (for native browser supports or browser extension) and you're done: <a intent href="http://webintents.org/share?type=text%2Furi-list&data=http%3A%2F%2Fkittens.com">Share Me!</a>
- extension 15y ago
  In this case, the intent degrades to a link to the action URI for browsers that don't support intents. What would be at the action URI? An error message or something that tries to fulfill the intent?
  - masklinn 15y ago
    > In this case, the intent degrades to a link to the action URI for browsers that don't support intents. Or when no support library is added on the client to provide some kind of in-page UI enhancement. Yes, that's the whole point: building on existing and well-functioning technologies to avoid that things break down completely and that a segment of the population is entirely left out for no good reason. > What would be at the action URI? An error message or something that tries to fulfill the intent? Second case, some sort of intents picker if multiple web services can fulfill it, or a redirection to the intent handler if there is only one. An error message if there is no registered service able to handle the intent. And it keeps the distribution of intents registrar from your proposal, which I think is a good idea.
kinlan 15y ago
We are thinking about how an anchor may look in this context, the problem at the moment is that only really allows very flat data structures to be sent. What if you want to share an activity-stream object.... saying that, I do like the proposed syntax. Intent choosing will be left in most likelhood up to the UA to define, they could favourite items. The main reasons for the intent tag is 1) it is a new platform feature and shouldn't be hacked in; a tag gives us the benefit of future enhancements, and 2) we and others could index this data and provide it as an option for the user to pick applications to use.

masklinn 15y ago

You don't even need to add attributes for the core behavior: <a href="http://webintents.org/share?type=text%2Furi-list&data=http%3A%2F%2Fkittens.com">Share Me!</a> Add a microformat/microdata attribute to provide a browser hint if desired (for native browser supports or browser extension) and you're done: <a intent href="http://webintents.org/share?type=text%2Furi-list&data=http%3A%2F%2Fkittens.com">Share Me!</a>

extension 15y ago
In this case, the intent degrades to a link to the action URI for browsers that don't support intents. What would be at the action URI? An error message or something that tries to fulfill the intent?
- masklinn 15y ago
  > In this case, the intent degrades to a link to the action URI for browsers that don't support intents. Or when no support library is added on the client to provide some kind of in-page UI enhancement. Yes, that's the whole point: building on existing and well-functioning technologies to avoid that things break down completely and that a segment of the population is entirely left out for no good reason. > What would be at the action URI? An error message or something that tries to fulfill the intent? Second case, some sort of intents picker if multiple web services can fulfill it, or a redirection to the intent handler if there is only one. An error message if there is no registered service able to handle the intent. And it keeps the distribution of intents registrar from your proposal, which I think is a good idea.

kinlan 15y ago

We are thinking about how an anchor may look in this context, the problem at the moment is that only really allows very flat data structures to be sent. What if you want to share an activity-stream object.... saying that, I do like the proposed syntax. Intent choosing will be left in most likelhood up to the UA to define, they could favourite items. The main reasons for the intent tag is 1) it is a new platform feature and shouldn't be hacked in; a tag gives us the benefit of future enhancements, and 2) we and others could index this data and provide it as an option for the user to pick applications to use.