W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Rechartering Device APIs & Policy Working Group

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 21:15:23 +0100
Cc: Paddy Byers <paddy@aplixcorp.com>, "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "Isberg, Anders" <Anders.Isberg@sonyericsson.com>, "Nord, Christian" <Christian.Nord@sonyericsson.com>, "Svensson, Magnus" <Magnus.Svensson@sonyericsson.com>
Message-Id: <4C3870D7-8706-45E7-91A9-480F25507DA1@berjon.com>
To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Hi all,

On Feb 4, 2011, at 17:02 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
> +1 to looking into OIPF/CE-HTML for DLNA API.

So the things we need in order to look at DLNA-related stuff are:

  - solid use cases, covering usage from multiple contexts (mobile, browser, etc.)
  - a good assessment of the availability of specification (we can't bind to something for which the specification isn't freely available, RF, etc.)
  - an idea of whether a broader approach might work better or not (Web Introducer and friends come to mind)
  - scope, scope, scope. Answering the above should help, but whatever it is it needs to be clearly scoped

> DLNA works well in embedded devices.

Some people disagree :) http://gxben.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/why-do-i-hate-dlna-protocol-so-much/

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Friday, 4 February 2011 20:15:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:16 GMT