W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > February 2013

Re: [discovery-api] Consolidated comments and questions

From: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:31:02 +0100
Message-ID: <51127736.8060906@telecom-paristech.fr>
To: Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>
CC: public-device-apis@w3.org
Le 6/2/13 15:44 , Rich Tibbett a écrit :
> Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
>> Le 5/2/13 15:36 , Rich Tibbett a écrit :
>>> 3. Use UPnP friendly name as NetworkService.name? From Cathy [8]:
>>>> [[The NetworkService.name attribute is supposed to be a
>>>> "human-readable title
>>>> for the service". Currently, for UPnP, it's defined to be the 
>>>> serviceId,
>>>> which doesn't fit the intended purpose at all. I would suggest 
>>>> using the
>>>> device's friendlyName in this attribute if it's intended to be a
>>>> user-facing
>>>> property.]]
>>>> JCD is concerned about fingerprinting [9]. Cathy thinks as long as the
>>>> information is provided after user consent, it should be ok [10].
>>> The UPnP Friendly Name is only provided at the device-level, not at
>>> the individual services level. As such it doesn't seem it would make
>>> sense to use that for service naming (10 different services from the
>>> same device would each have the same names which is misleading IMO).
>>> It would be great if there were something equivalent to 'friendly
>>> name' in the service description file (obtainable via the Service's
>>> SCPDURL element). Alas, there is no such thing.
>> JCD: In my in-progress implementation, I had to concatenate "device
>> friendly name" for human readability with "serviceType" for unique
>> identification of the service.
>> The result is long, but otherwise, the system is simply not usable.
> Yes. Bear in mind though that the NeworkService.name attribute does 
> not have any requirements to be unique though so it shouldn't matter 
> so much exactly what is returned here.
> The only keyed information we require is on the NetworkService.id 
> attribute which requires that the id be unique for each service being 
> shared.
JCD:Maybe my proposal is not good enough, but *the current 
name=serviceId for UPnP does not work in practice*.
First serviceId may well be the same on different devices, so you get 
identical "name" fields if multiple devices expose the same service.
Then, *if you want the user to be able to choose with just the name 
information, then the name has to contain both the device friendly name 
and some information about the service,* so why not serviceType (or a 
relevant part thereof)...
Best regards

>> Best regards
>> JC

JC Dufourd
Directeur d'Etudes/Professor
Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing
Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France
Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 15:31:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:58 UTC