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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Dec 16 11:08:07 PST 2011

On 2011-12-08 18:54, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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.


That makes it sound a lot easier than it is. After all, there's no 
extension point here. Adding attributes to <meta> (or <link>) requires a 
change to HTML5, or a delta spec adding these as conforming attributes.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the whatwg mailing list