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

Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:53:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAACrNNfaT1T6wFkjYANgY_rtpXnuz7P2SNTu-Q7-Y=6+N-0Y5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, public-device-apis@w3.org
Some of this really should wait until there's a list.

I believe that generally one wants to adjust audio as close to the
source as possible, in which case the TV doesn't know anything.

Some parallels:
A. If you have a cable box => vcr => tv in old serial fashion and use
old fashion remotes, changing the audio w/ the cable box remote
adjusts the audio sent by that box to the vcr, the tv's audio level
isn't affected (but the cable box can insert an overlay indicating
level and hide it after some interval).
B. If you use digital audio out on your Mac to an external device,
volume controls disappear from the mac (it expects you to use your
stereo's mixer instead).
- here if an intent user decides you're using a tv, it could choose to
hide audio controls (deferring to the tv). Note that I consider this
more of a bug than a feature, but...

Anyway, to your underlying question:
Android Intents and I believe some of the web Intents proposals have two forms:
1. Fire and forget (mailto:, outbound video/audio/document)
2. Establish bidirectional communications link

Defining how to make #2 work should be in scope for the TF and Out Of
Scope while defining its Charter.

#2 is obviously more exciting for vendors trying to proxy to non web
things, but IMO that's an implementation detail or potentially a
supplemental Note/Specification.

On 11/10/11, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:
>
>
> --
> Marcos Caceres
>
>
> On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Rich Tibbett wrote:
>
>> Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> >
>> > > It's important to separate Intents as currently proposed and what we
>> > > collectively want out of them. In order to move fast we probably don't
>> > > want to pile up a zillion features there, but we equally certainly
>> > > don't want this to turn into a rubber-stamping exercise. So bring the
>> > > UCs on!
>> > >
>> > > - Hide quoted message -
>> > > > Perhaps someone could take the time to describe exactly how a user
>> > > > could communicate with an existing TV device in their home from a
>> > > > web browser supporting web intents based on the above requirements?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > We actually agreed that folks in the Discovery/Home Networking gang
>> > > would do just that, to see if it flies.
>> > Also, a prototype might help here …. i.e., it's not up to the WG to
>> > explain how it does what you want, but up to you to show that it doesn't
>> > do something you want through a prototype (or similar) to do. If your
>> > prototype breaks down because the intents system doesn't work without
>> > extensions, then we have something to work from.
>> >
>> > Agree?
>>
>> Yes. I don't doubt this logic :)
> A use case I keep thinking about is:
>
>  1. I'm at Youtube.com, and I want to watch a video on my tv.
>  2. I tell youtube, "hey, sent this to my TV".
>  3. Video starts playing on my TV.
>  4. I turn the audio up/down on the youtube video (or I scrub the timeline).
> How does that work? Is that all still done over HTTP and the intent (i.e.,
> the audio control)?
>
> I guess it's like the "intent" is ongoing while some activity is happening
> (watching the video on my tv). I don't know if the current proposal supports
> such a thing or if it's more "fire and forget".
>
> Anyway, just thinking out loud… guess we can pick this up in the new list.
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 21:54:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:24 GMT