W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-intents@w3.org > July 2012

RE: Web Intents Addendum for local Services uploaded

From: Nilsson, Claes1 <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:27:48 +0200
To: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
CC: "public-web-intents@w3.org" <public-web-intents@w3.org>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6DFA1B20D858A14488A66D6EEDF26AA35D6D7F24EF@seldmbx03.corpusers.net>
Hi Jean-Claude,

I agree that connection of Web Intents with unmodified, non Web Intents enabled devices, is also interesting. There are advantages and disadvantages with both approaches. However, as stated before, we have started to work on a specification with the clear assumption "Web Intents enabled local devices". The statement "A Web Intents enabled UPnP device MUST ..." is therefore correct as it says what is required from a Web Intents enabled UPnP devices. The statement does not say anything about or exclude Web Intents for non Web Intents enabled UPnP devices.

I hope to get bandwith after the summer to look at Web Intents for services on non Web Intents enabled local devices. This includes not only UPnP and mDNS devices but also Bluetooth, USB, ANT+ etc connected devices.

Best regards
  Claes

From: Jean-Claude Dufourd [mailto:jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr]
Sent: den 11 juli 2012 10:28
To: Nilsson, Claes1
Cc: public-web-intents@w3.org; public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: Re: Web Intents Addendum for local Services uploaded

Your addendum describes a connection of web intents to modified UPnP devices and services.
I claim that it is perfectly possible, and preferrable, to connect web intents with unmodified UPnP devices and services.

I remember, Claes, when you said that the two are not incompatible.
I hope you are right, but I am not so sure.

I actually object to the "A Web Intents enabled UPnP device MUST ..." sentences, because they carry the implication that only those UPnP devices can work with web intents, that only modified UPnP devices can and unmodified UPnP devices will not.
And that is not true, according to me.

I am not sure exactly what change would make the addendum acceptable to me, but that seems to be the most sensitive issue.
Best regards
JC

On 27juin 23:32, Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
Hi,

I have uploaded the draft Web Intents Addendum specification on Local Services,  http://w3c-test.org/dap/wi-addendum-local-services/.

In addition there is a video of a demo of the use case "Play video on remote device using Web Intents", https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-2pb_m94nPxRGV5LTRvM0pLaUU/edit.

Feedback is welcome!

Best regards
  Claes
[cid:image001.gif@01CD5F52.FA1E0200]

Claes Nilsson M.Sc.E.E
Master Engineer, Research
Technology Research - Advanced Application Lab

Sony Mobile Communications
 Phone:  +46 10 80 15178
Mobile: +46 705 56 68 78
Switchboard: +46 10 80 00000
E-Mail: mailto:claes1.nilsson@sonymobile.com<mailto:claes1.nilsson@sonyericsson.com>
Visiting Address; Nya Vattentornet
SE-221 88 LUND,
Sweden
Disclaimer:
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the named recipient(s) and access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. The views are those of the sender and not necessarily the views of Sony Ericsson and Sony Ericsson accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever or howsoever arising in connection with this e-mail.Any attachment(s) to this message has been checked for viruses, but please rely on your own virus checker and procedures. If you contact us by e-mail, we will store your name and address to facilitate communications. If you are not the intended recipient, please inform the sender by replying this transmission and delete the e-mail and any copies of it without disclosing it.






image001.gif
(image/gif attachment: image001.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 09:28:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 July 2012 09:28:24 GMT