- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:38:37 +0100
- To: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>, "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
- CC: Ingar Mæhlum Arntzen <ingar.arntzen@gmail.com>, Sangwhan Moon <smoon@opera.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org IG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, Njål Borch <njaal.borch@gmail.com>, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Hi Giuseppe, Mark, and Web and TV IG participants, Jumping into the thread after the holiday season and the CES show... On 2014-12-18 10:08, Giuseppe Pascale wrote: > For the record, synchronization use cases and requirements have already > been discussed at length in this IG in the past, see e.g. > > http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases#10._.22Use_Case_Ten_.E2.80.93_Sync_Among_Browser-_and_non-Browser_Devices.22 > > but I don't think there has been any practical follow up on that for > luck of a critical mass of contributors to the work. Indeed, synchronization use cases keep haunting back IG discussions without lots of practical solutions up until now. That's the reason why Dom and I thought it would be a good idea to share the proposal from Ingar and Njål with the Web and TV IG first. > If there is a renewed interest in doing something my recommendation > would be to keep discussing on this list to identify what we are trying > to achieve and if we need a spec, and if the answer to that is positive, > to setup a CG to refine the extension proposal before submission to a > WG, unless the conclusion is really limited to a few small changes to > the HTML5 spec in which case it may be easier to just report bugs > against the HTML5.1 spec. Right, the possibilities Mark listed match what we had in mind. As things stand, the proposal re-uses as many existing concepts, protocols and formats as possible but remains slightly more involved than "just a few small changes to the HTML5 spec". I would assume the HTML WG would rather want to see a concrete specification before it takes up the work. I encourage Web and TV IG participants to take a look at the Shared Motion proposal [1] and related demos [2] that show how it could enable the use cases discussed within the IG, and to share your thoughts, concerns or support. I personally like the idea behind Shared Motion because it entirely separates the notion of motion from media streams, does not require a complex back-end server setup (a Web sockets server is typically enough) and can easily be used by anyone to create synchronized multimedia presentations. Said differently, I understood it, which is not a given with synchronization topics ;) I'm sure Ingar and Njål would be more happy to push the proposal forward, for instance to write the extension specification, although only if it makes sense for others as well! Thanks, Francois. [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2014Dec/0016.html [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2014Dec/0017.html
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 17:39:12 UTC