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

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

From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 09:23:04 +0200
To: "public-web-intents@w3.org" <public-web-intents@w3.org>, "Isberg, Anders" <Anders.Isberg@sonymobile.com>, "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com>
Message-ID: <op.wfe5gqki6ugkrk@giuseppep-x220>
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 23:47:19 +0200, Nilsson, Claes1  
<Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com> wrote:
>
> [claes] The reason why we proposed the "action.webintents.org" SSDP  
> header was to achieve a solution that scales better by being able to  
> filter the SSDP responses. In a large company subnetwork there might be  
> many Web Intents enabled devices and we considered the overhead of  
> fetching the registration document for many devices using a battery  
> powered mobile device. However, I am not sure how significant this is  
> compared to the general nature of UPnP with so many messages going back  
> and forth...

Yes this was my thought as well. Furthermore my assumption was that you  
would fetch the registration document once and cache the info. This would  
reduce the overhead.
Anyway having them could still be an optimization, I'm just not sure how  
much you save in practice. Furthermore, what would happen if the action in  
the registration is not the same as the SSDP?
Which one is to be considered normative?

> So the "action.webintents.org" is not carved in stone. I understand your  
> point of being so near the UPnP standard as possible.
>
My concern is also on the implementation side, i.e. be able to reuse  
existing UPnP software with as little changes as possible.

> /g
>
>> Best regards
>>   Claes
>>
>>
>>
>> -----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?
>>
>> /g
>>
>>> 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 Tuesday, 5 June 2012 07:23:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 June 2012 07:23:39 GMT