[whatwg] Proposal: <intent> tag for Web Intents API

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 18:59:43 +0100, Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan at google.com>  
wrote:
> Cons:
> * ordering of data in the content element - if the ordering of data in
> the content value is mandatory and the developer mixes up the
> ordering, does the action then become "image/png" (which is still
> techincally valid) and the data type become the uri string specified?
> * we have other optional attributes, such as title, disposition and
> icon so a scheme needs to be defined inside the content, if we define
> a scheme it looks similar to the intent tag but harder to prepare
> (from a normal developers perspective)
> * some attributes can have spaces so we would need to define encoding
> mechanisms inside the content attribute to handle quotes, and double
> quotes.
> * we can't provide a visual fallback if intents aren't supported - see
> discussion about self closing tag in body.
> * harder to validate (due to all of the above)

We can just add additional attributes to <meta> you know. We have done the  
same for <link>. E.g. for <link rel=icon> you can specify a sizes  
attribute.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/