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

Re: DAP rechartering discussion

From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:11:54 +0100
To: "Matt Hammond" <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>, "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com>
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: <op.vsbyp4mv6ugkrk@rabdomant-ubuntu>
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 23:32:09 +0100, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>  
wrote:

> 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) ?
>
This would fit nicely in the "home networking" discussion we started in  
Berlin and presumably we will continue to discuss here soon.

@Matt, Oliver
Honestly, I haven't had time to look into your work yet.
How do you think it would fit into a more generic work around "home  
networking API", that is devices discovery and control inside the home  
network (UPnP-like)?

/g

> ...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/
>>
>


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software - Sweden
Received on Monday, 14 March 2011 11:13:13 GMT

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