LWN: Comments on "Differing intentions towards Web Intents"

Differing intentions towards Web Intents

massimiliano — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 07:44:37 +0000

the only thing which comes to my mind while reading this.is - didn't the desktop solve this 20 years ago?

Yeah, but... which desktop?

AFAIK, each desktop OS implementation from a different vendor (Windows, OSX, and in the past BeOS or OS/2) has its own API for defining these "MIME associations". The Linux desktop has its own Freedesktop standard which luckily is followed by all desktop implementations here.

So the situation on the web looks similar, with every vendor trying to push its own solution. The real difference is that on the web there is a real push towards avoiding fragmentation, so in the end one solution is likely to prevail on the others. The fact that this solution will be the "best" according to any criteria is probably (sadly) irrelevant, like in the Betamax-VHS case, or in the Javascript language case...

Differing intentions towards Web Intents

jospoortvliet — Mon, 28 May 2012 09:27:59 +0000

theonly thing which comes to my mind while reading this.is - didn't the desktop solve this 20 years ago?

Differing intentions towards Web Intents

mathstuf — Fri, 25 May 2012 00:44:59 +0000

I think this will be interesting to hook up into uzbl with xdg-open/xdg-mime support. Treat uzbl as an HTML widget to launch any website as your FOO editor and/or open web stuff using a local editor.

Differing intentions towards Web Intents

mrshiny — Thu, 24 May 2012 20:03:59 +0000

Whatever drawbacks WebIntents have in their design, Mozilla should note that Android's Intents are an easy to use and useful feature in the operating system. If the WebIntents API is only as successful as the Android Intents API, that will already be an advantage for users.