W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > March 2011

RE: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Timing of this TF (was: New TF on Home Networking - Call for Participants)

From: 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:26:05 +0900
To: <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008e01cbef7d$47b11850$d71348f0$@lee@lge.com>
Thanks Robin about the information about DAP timeline.

DAP has highly focus on mobile phone API As far as I know.
Would you please let me know some key questions about current status of DAP?

  1> Does DAP have TV manufacturer expert or UPnP expert inside?
  2> Does DAP have design principle of Device API? If so, could you explain
the general rule?
  3> What Browser vendors have interest in implementing Device API?

Best regards,
HJ

-----Original Message-----
From: 
Sent: 없음
To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Subject: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Timing of this TF (was: New TF on Home
Networking - Call for Participants)

Hi all!

The TF's announcement mentioned the following:

> Another goal for this first phase is also to identify
> - if the requirements can be addressed by one ore more existing W3C WGs,
OR
> - if a new WG is required, OR
> - if the work is out of scope for W3C


In this respect, I would like to bring some timing-related information. One
of the WGs that could potentially pick up work from this TF is the Device
APIs and Policy WG (aka DAP). I don't think that we would take on anything
that is too strongly tied to TV, but we could probably be the right place
in which to standardise some generic aspects that are likely to be useful
across a broad spectrum of devices (for instance, discovery).

That's all fine and well but we're on a schedule. DAP's charter runs out in
June, and as a result we plan to have a new charter ready inside of May
(preferably on the earlier side of that month). Since we intend to be
strict with our charter's scope, everything that is meant to go into DAP
needs to be included in the charter. Therefore, any requirement output from
this TF that would be intended for DAP to pick up should be defined within
the next few weeks.

I'm not saying this to discourage people - quite the opposite! I'm pretty
sure that if we bang our brains together we can come up with a well-defined
enough set of use cases and requirements in the home networking domain. A
lot of requirements discussions tend to start meta with a "how do we gather
requirements" discussion. I'd like to suggest that we keep that to a
minimum, perhaps just adopting the famous "dump your brain into an email,
refine later" methodology.

Thoughts? Screams?

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 08:26:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 March 2011 08:26:48 GMT