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

Re: DAP rechartering discussion

From: Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:28:36 -0000
To: "Giuseppe Pascale" <giuseppep@opera.com>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com>, "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.vsrp5y0vmko9fo@r44116>
I also agree - subdividing would simplify re-use of common components -  
such as the discovery and security aspects.

 From the BBC's perspective: our original goals (enabling the creation of  
remote control devices that will work with many manufacturer's TVs/STBs)  
can still be met by profiling the use of a combination of these components.



Matt

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:55:49 -0000, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> Hi Giuseppe,
>
> On Mar 14, 2011, at 12:11 , Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
>> 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)?
>
> Just a small note: one thing that I would hope we do is that we would  
> not create one big, monstrous "home networking API". Big monolithic  
> projects are hard to specify, and when they eventually get specified  
> they take ages to implement — assuming there still are any implementers  
> around by that time :)
>
> That's why, in the context of potentially working on this in the DAP  
> group, I think it is best to try and split the UC API into smaller bits,  
> and see what needs to be supported on the client and on server  
> implementation. What I see in the client is mostly:
>
>   - an API for discovery of some sort;
>   - perhaps an API for security pairing (something like GSSAPI maybe?).
>
> I don't see browsers implementing the client side of the UC API, or  
> rather I don't see that as being necessary. Would it for instance make  
> sense to specify the above two here, and the protocol in a TV group?  
> This is just a thought — I'm simply wondering if the responsibility  
> split makes sense that way.
>


-- 
| Matt Hammond
| Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 23:30:17 GMT

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