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

RE: Web Intents for local network services (DAP Action-510)

From: Nilsson, Claes1 <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:33:44 +0200
To: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>, "public-web-intents@w3.org" <public-web-intents@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6DFA1B20D858A14488A66D6EEDF26AA35D6A9EC220@seldmbx03.corpusers.net>
Hi Giuseppe,

The purpose of my comment on Action 511 was just to clarify that support for services on legacy UPnP devices is out of scope for our current work.

We see several advantages with our approach on having the Web Intents service registration document and Service handler pages in the UPnP device. For example, Client web pages could be written agnostic to local network service discovery protocol used and the cross-domain issue for control is solved as the Service page is retrieved from the UPnP device.

I don't see why we shouldn't enable mDNS according to the same principle as well. 

Best regards

-----Original Message-----
From: Giuseppe Pascale [mailto:giuseppep@opera.com] 
Sent: den 1 juni 2012 18:40
To: public-web-intents@w3.org; Nilsson, Claes1
Subject: Re: Web Intents for local network services (DAP Action-510)

I've only started now to look at the proposal but let me start by  
clarifying one thing

On Tue, 15 May 2012 17:41:35 +0200, Nilsson, Claes1  
<Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com> wrote:

> I have also removed the slides on Web Intents discovery of services on  
> legacy UPnP devices as I assume this is covered by  
> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/511.

To be clear: I'm not going to work on this action because so far is still  
not clear to me where we are heading.
Furthermore, if we were to design a solution for "legacy" devices that  
will by design work with any device,
so I'm still not sure why we want to keep the 2 separate.

Most of the discovery part needs to be done inside the UA. By defining a  
new service (VS mapping well-known intents on well-known services) you are  
adding burden to implementers that needs to support both.
By further extending UPnP and mDNS you are adding yet another burden.

> We are also planning to make a proposal for mDNS.
What is the advantage in slightly changing existing protocols? And if you  
are extending them anyway (i.e. you cannot reuse existing  
devices/libraries as is) why not just picking one protocol?


> Next step is to  make a Web Intents addendum specification according to   
> http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/actions/510.
> Best regards
>   Claes
> [cid:image001.gif@01CD32BB.48F373C0]
> 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.

Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 10:46:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:14:47 UTC