Hello Jean,
thank you for the understandable picture.
1) In choice 1, the service page should come from UPnP deivce.
please check page 13 at Claes's presentation <http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/f/fa/W3C_Web_Intents_-_Local_Service_Discovery.pdf>
2) also, what is the definition of "proxy" in choice 1 ?
if this is mechanism to register or notify the webintents registration info to Browser,
this "proxy" would be same as choice 3.
so, for me, choice 1 and choice 3 may be same.
1) choice 1 should be below.
[cid:image006.png@01CD2463.209B18D0]
2) choice 1 and choice 3 may be same
[cid:image007.png@01CD2463.209B18D0]
From: Jean-Claude Dufourd [mailto:jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 5:23 AM
To: Nilsson, Claes1
Cc: Sato, Naoyuki (TDG); Clarke Stevens; public-web-intents@w3.org
Subject: Re: Status of my Actions from Shenzhen meeting (relating to Web Intents for local network service discovery)
On 26avr. 16:12, Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
According to what I remember from the meeting my interpretation is:
* ACTION-510: Create new spec how WebIntents UPnP registration (Claes Nilsson): Covers the use case for using a Web Intents enabled UA supporting UPnP discovery to discover and dynamically register Services in Web Intents-enabled UPnP devices. Basically "Choice 1" according to Jean-Claude below.
* ACTION-511: Figure out how to put together a document describing how to do Intents with existing UPnP (himself or by finding someone who does it) (Giuseppe Pascale): Covers the use case for using a Web Intents enabled UA supporting UPnP discovery to discover unmodified/existing UPnP devices/services. Basically "Choice 2" according to Jean-Claude below.
However, I am not sure where Jean-Claude's choice 3 belongs.
So, which is the problem? We are investigating/specifying Web Intents solutions both for existing local network services and for "Web Intents-enabled" local services. Sony is executing ACTION-510 and Clarke is executing ACTION-511. Fine! :)
JCD: Here are drawings to help understand the various proposals:
[cid:image001.jpg@01CD2462.357B7250]
In choice 1, registration markup is in the SSDP in the UPnP device. The service page is in the browser or proxy.
[cid:image002.jpg@01CD2462.357B7250]
In choice 2, UPnP device is untouched, registration markup and service are in the browser or proxy.
[cid:image003.jpg@01CD2462.357B7250]
In choice 3, the UPnP device is untouched, the browser is almost untouched, just needs to implement a small UPnP service interface, and the proxy does all the work and contains both the registration markup page and the service page.
This is a good way to make the proxy independent of the browser.
Best regards
JC
