Re: [whatwg] IRC and WWW integration proposal
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Gryllida wrote: Usecase 1: I search for python and see a link to their website in search results, and the search engine looks up both title and IRC info - so I see webpage title, and a link to its irc network or channel. There's nothing stopping search engines today from exposing IRC links they see in Web pages (either in a or link elements, or indeed elsewhere). So this is basically possible today. Usecase 2: Browsers implement some interface to display IRC channel link or window when user visits a page. Advantages: This should be possible today too. If the need is a machine-readable link that is explicitly labeled as specific to the page in some way, then the simplest solution is to mint some new link rel types, as in: link rel=official-irc-for-site href=irc://example.com/#mysite If there is implementor interest, I recommend registering such a link type in the link type registry. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] IRC and WWW integration proposal
Gryllida gryll...@gmail.com schrieb am Fri, 1 Feb 2013 15:41:50 +1030:
[…]
It is rather common to have a channel for a website, not just one
page. There are some exceptions of sites which have subsites with a
channel for each. A {IRC, XMPP} channel is an official chat medium
aiming to serve as an official {support, development, contact}
means. For example, https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Themes
irc://irc.mozilla.org/themedev - discussion of theme development for
Mozilla platform http://www.ubuntu.com/* irc://irc.ubuntu.com/ -
official support channel for the distro the w3c network for
individual sections of website - channels for development
collaboration and meetings c
Those relations are not the same. The Mozilla example shows a
*discussion about* the collection described by by the referring
document, the Ubuntu example shows *support for* the software available
at the referring page. The W3C example is probably similar to the
Mozilla example, only that it would refer to discussions about
documents.
I think a protocol attribute might be redundant as it is a part of
the URL.
Indeed.
It may be worth noting that every part of the note I originally sent
is possible to look up and you can try finding proper way to phrase
things (I have no experience in writing documentation of this sort).
I do not understand.
--
Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann
http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net
Re: [whatwg] IRC and WWW integration proposal
Usecase 1: This can already be covered by having the bot/engine look for an irc protocol link on the page. Usecase 2 part one: Operating systems already do this. They see an irc:// protocol and ask what to open it with or use their already assigned option. No need for a browser to take this over. Usecase 2 part two: Most browsers offer extension platforms, someone can easily create one to look for irc:// links and display something based on that. I personally am not seeing any major benefit by having the proposed additions added into spec(s). Just more work for developers both on browsers and websites if they chose to support this. -Garbee Usecase 1: I search for python and see a link to their website in search results, and the search engine looks up both title and IRC info - so I see webpage title, and a link to its irc network or channel. Usecase 2: Browsers implement some interface to display IRC channel link or window when user visits a page. Advantages: - The websites will benefit from this and will not have to manually embed qwebirc or Mibbit instances into their webpages anymore[1], leaving the IRC client preference to the user (choose from locally installed clients, or a client provided by the website). - User would not have to skim a page of text to locate and click an irc:// link manually, as such links would be a part of browser interface (an IRC icon like RSS feed icon?).
Re: [whatwg] IRC and WWW integration proposal
I'll actually follow up my last post with this. Is there any scenario where something can be done with these changes, or any one of them, that today isn't possible with the current specifications? I simply don't see one myself. If you could give a scenario, then could you possibly make an example page and write a polyfill that would show the use-case? It may help us better understand any other use-case that is currently not possible and show us what functionality to look at in order to create something for the (a?) spec that would work. On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Jonathan Garbee jonat...@garbee.me wrote: Usecase 1: This can already be covered by having the bot/engine look for an irc protocol link on the page. Usecase 2 part one: Operating systems already do this. They see an irc:// protocol and ask what to open it with or use their already assigned option. No need for a browser to take this over. Usecase 2 part two: Most browsers offer extension platforms, someone can easily create one to look for irc:// links and display something based on that. I personally am not seeing any major benefit by having the proposed additions added into spec(s). Just more work for developers both on browsers and websites if they chose to support this. -Garbee Usecase 1: I search for python and see a link to their website in search results, and the search engine looks up both title and IRC info - so I see webpage title, and a link to its irc network or channel. Usecase 2: Browsers implement some interface to display IRC channel link or window when user visits a page. Advantages: - The websites will benefit from this and will not have to manually embed qwebirc or Mibbit instances into their webpages anymore[1], leaving the IRC client preference to the user (choose from locally installed clients, or a client provided by the website). - User would not have to skim a page of text to locate and click an irc:// link manually, as such links would be a part of browser interface (an IRC icon like RSS feed icon?).
Re: [whatwg] IRC and WWW integration proposal
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 07:41:59 +0100, Nils Dagsson Moskopp n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote: Shane Allen sh...@snoonet.org schrieb am Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:40:11 -0600: 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. We probably misunderstood each other. Protocols are mentioned at the beginning of a URL; having a protocol attribute on a link element would therefore be redundant. To illustrate: link rel=chat protocol=irc href=irc://irc.freenode.com/whatwg Instead of: link rel=chat href=irc://irc.freenode.com/whatwg Or a more fitting example of how it could be used: a href=http://whatwg.org; protocol=httpWHATWG/a But, what happens now? a href=http://whatwg.org; protocol=mailtoWHATWG/a Hilarious :-) -- Odin Hørthe Omdal (Velmont/odinho) · Core, Opera Software, http://opera.com
[whatwg] IRC and WWW integration proposal
Hi, I would like to submit a proposal of integration of websites and webpages with IRC. == Summary == To have some universal, standard protocol to indicate that a webpage or website has an IRC channel or network associated with it. == Purpose == For anyone to write scripts which would check whether a website has an irc channel or network for it. Usecase 1: I search for python and see a link to their website in search results, and the search engine looks up both title and IRC info - so I see webpage title, and a link to its irc network or channel. Usecase 2: Browsers implement some interface to display IRC channel link or window when user visits a page. Advantages: - The websites will benefit from this and will not have to manually embed qwebirc or Mibbit instances into their webpages anymore[1], leaving the IRC client preference to the user (choose from locally installed clients, or a client provided by the website). - User would not have to skim a page of text to locate and click an irc:// link manually, as such links would be a part of browser interface (an IRC icon like RSS feed icon?). == Short desc == The IRC info should be inside of a page HEAD tag. It should include a link to an IRC network or an IRC channel with a note of whether it's for the entire website, or specific for this webpage. There could be two group of entries too, one for the website, and another one for this page. Related specs: -- IRC protocol [2] -- irc:// URL specs [3] -- meta, head, link tags specs (you really know where they are) == Basic syntax == There could be different ways to indicate this information in the HEAD tag; we should pick one of them and standartise it. Option #1 link rel=officialirc scope=site href=irc://server.tld/#channel (scope = site or scope = page) (multiple tags allowed) Option #2 meta name=irc scope=site content=irc://server.tld/#channel / (multiple tags allowed) Option #3 irc network=networkname server ssl=yes port=6697 hostname=foo/ server ssl=no port=6667 hostname=bar channel=baz1/ channel=baz2 /irc I'm more inclined to pick any one of the first two options (probably 1?). == Browser behaviour == When user clicks a part of browser interface referring to IRC, he's presented with - a list of network(s) and/or channel(s) the page advertises, and - a list of IRC clients to use. For this purpose, the metadata should include IRC webchat URL if the website wants to have one (self-hosted, or a service like Mibbit) in addition to the IRC clients user has installed on his machine. [1] http://wiki.mibbit.com/index.php/Widget [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1459 [3] http://www.w3.org/Addressing/draft-mirashi-url-irc-01.txt Welcome any feedback and help shaping a standard if need be. Gryllida.
Re: [whatwg] IRC and WWW integration proposal
Gryllida gryll...@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
Re: [whatwg] IRC and WWW integration proposal
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 05:24:58 +0100 Nils Dagsson Moskopp n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote: Gryllida gryll...@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? --Gryllida.
Re: [whatwg] IRC and WWW integration proposal
Gryllida gryll...@gmail.com schrieb am Fri, 1 Feb 2013 15:01:26 +1030: On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 05:24:58 +0100 Nils Dagsson Moskopp n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote: Gryllida gryll...@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
Re: [whatwg] IRC and WWW integration proposal
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 05:55:11 +0100
Nils Dagsson Moskopp n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
Gryllida gryll...@gmail.com schrieb am Fri, 1 Feb 2013 15:01:26 +1030:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 05:24:58 +0100
Nils Dagsson Moskopp n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
Gryllida gryll...@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
It is rather common to have a channel for a website, not just one page.
There are some exceptions of sites which have subsites with a channel for each.
A {IRC, XMPP} channel is an official chat medium aiming to serve as an
official {support, development, contact} means.
For example,
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Themes irc://irc.mozilla.org/themedev -
discussion of theme development for Mozilla platform
http://www.ubuntu.com/* irc://irc.ubuntu.com/ - official support channel for
the distro
the w3c network for individual sections of website - channels for development
collaboration and meetings
c
I think a protocol attribute might be redundant as it is a part of the URL.
It may be worth noting that every part of the note I originally sent is
possible to look up and you can try finding proper way to phrase things (I have
no experience in writing documentation of this sort).
--Gryllida.
Re: [whatwg] IRC and WWW integration proposal
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 n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote: Gryllida gryll...@gmail.com schrieb am Fri, 1 Feb 2013 15:01:26 +1030: On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 05:24:58 +0100 Nils Dagsson Moskopp n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote: Gryllida gryll...@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 (sh...@snoonet.org) - *Network Director*
