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

Re: DAP rechartering discussion

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:32:09 -0800
To: Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
CC: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
Message-ID: <77A6F6A2-FC4A-412D-BD40-E1F5C6648B43@netflix.com>
Matt, Olivier,

The Universal Remote protocol looks great. At what level, though, would you expect there to be a need for standardization ?

I can presumably implement both client and server side of the protocol using HTML/CSS/Javascript (if I can't then there's a need for standardization right away), so what would remain would be device/application discovery and the initial security aspects.

i.e. how does the Universal Remote client discover that there is a nearby TV supporting the Universal Remote server application (or capable of supporting it) and ask the TV to launch that application (or kick off installation) ?

...Mark

On Mar 11, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Matt Hammond wrote:

> Would the Device And Policy APIs WG (DAP) be interested in looking at APIs  
> not just within the device itself (for accessing on-board device  
> functions) but also defining web style APIs between devices?
> 
> My personal belief is that the strengths of the TV is as a primary (though  
> not exclusively!) shared and "lean-back" experience. I think it makes  
> sense to put in place the means to allow web applications on other devices  
> to interact with the TV. A lot of the functions/user-experience that might  
> traditionally be considered the domain of an on-screen "widget" could be  
> migrated off the TV screen to more powerful and easier to interact with  
> device, but without losing that connection to the TV content.
> 
> Our "Universal Control" API work, in the BBC, makes the functionality of  
> the TV queryable and controllable via a high level data model that tries  
> to abstract away from device and service implementation specifics. Its a  
> RESTful web based API intended to be served by the TV (or set-top-box)  
> itself. We'd hope our work so far could be a useful kick start for work in  
> this area. Components of such an API could be generalised and be useful  
> for other classes of devices.
> 
> My colleague Olivier posted a few details (including links to our spec  
> docs) just a few days ago:
> 
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Mar/0013.html
> 
> Could this kind of area be a logical and productive progression for DAP's  
> mission?
> 
> 
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:27:39 -0000, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>  
> wrote:
> 
>> [+ Web & TV Interest Group]
>> 
>> Should the device types mentioned in the new Device And Policy APIs  
>> recharter proposal be expanded to include TVs and other such devices  
>> which increasingly make use of web technologies ?
>> 
>> ... Mark
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 11, 2011, at 5:44 AM, <Ingmar.Kliche@telekom.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> Deutsche Telekom supports the new DAP charter proposal [1], but asks for
>>> some clarifications and/or changes.
>>> 
>>> Chapter 1 "Goals" explicitly mentions security and privacy and proposes
>>> "... reusing existing browser-based security metaphors where they apply
>>> and looking into innovative security and privacy mechanisms where they
>>> don't."
>>> 
>>> On the other hand section 2.2. "Out of scope" explicitly excludes
>>> further thinking about a policy framework. This limits the possibilities
>>> of "innovative security and privacy mechanisms", since one potential
>>> solution is precluded beforehand. We know about the discussions in the
>>> past, but we think it should be left up to the discussions during the
>>> charter period if a policy framework is the right way to go or not.
>>> 
>>> Furthermore the scope of the work explicitly mentions different types of
>>> devices ("Devices in this context include desktop computers, laptop
>>> computers, mobile Internet devices (MIDs), cellular phones."). Therefore
>>> we think it would be appropriate to add another success criteria which
>>> requires implementations for different device types before going to W3C
>>> Rec (especially mobile and desktop devices) to make sure that the APIs
>>> are implementable in the different environments which are explicitly in
>>> scope of DAP.
>>> 
>>> ... Ingmar.
>>> 
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/DeviceAPICharter.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> | Matt Hammond
> | Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London
> | http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/
> 
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 22:32:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:18 GMT