[whatwg] IRC and WWW integration proposal

[Shane Allen]

> A protocol attribute for <link> elements would be totally hilarious.
Not if the device is a tablet, or a phone running a browser that supports
it. Need support from a page/article or even a project? Hit a button, and
if the protocol is implemented, you're in the IRC channel able to garnish
that support instantly.

Whether it's IRC. or XMPP the option being there wouldn't be harmful or
detrimental in any way.

http://www.snoonet.org/missions - Our goal is to bring live chat to
subreddits that enable it, why should people have to 'Search' for a live
chat on a page? Why should others that seek what my project is doing have
to rely on an extension when a protocol is easy implementable (whether or
not it's used is on the webdev)

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp <
nils at dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote:

> Gryllida <gryllida at gmail.com> schrieb am Fri, 1 Feb 2013 15:01:26 +1030:
>
> > On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 05:24:58 +0100
> > Nils Dagsson Moskopp <nils at dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Gryllida <gryllida at gmail.com> schrieb am Fri, 1 Feb 2013 14:26:00
> > > +1030:
> > >
> > > > == Summary ==
> > > >   To have some universal, standard protocol to indicate that a
> > > > webpage or website has an IRC channel or network associated with
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > Associated in what form? Which verb describles the relationship
> > > between the web page and the IRC channel? Also, I would call the
> > > link relation „chat“ or something, there are other protocols than
> > > IRC, e.g. XMPP. --
> > > Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann
> > > <http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
> >
> > Probably associated as in 'have', that a page/site 'has' its channel
> > somewhere. Acknowledge XMPP support in that, might need a 'protocol'
> > attribute or just an xmpp:// URL?
>
> “to have” as you use it .ust denotes a relationship exists (as in “I
> have a sister.”), but not which one. My fault, the question should have
> been “What noun describes the IRC channel in relation to the web
> page?”. For a feed, for example, this can be answered with „this is an
> alternate representation of the content“.
>
> A protocol attribute for <link> elements would be totally hilarious.
>
> --
> Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann
> <http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
>



-- 
Shane Allen (shane at snoonet.org) - *Network Director*