W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: [WARP4U] WARP with UPnP

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:24:48 +0100
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-Id: <4AE637F0-EDD5-431A-9E5A-36C3940D53A1@berjon.com>
To: Stephen Jolly <stephen.jolly@rd.bbc.co.uk>
On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:12 , Stephen Jolly wrote:
> Keeping things simple, the most compelling use case I can see (aka the one I care about...) is where the developer wants to write a widget that can access resources on a network with no centralised DNS or developer-predictable IP addresses.  This is the case for many home networks.
> 
> As a concrete example, one of my projects here at BBC R&D is to write a web API for networked televisions and set-top boxes that fits this use case precisely.  We'd like widget developers to be able to access it just as easily as native application developers can, and the current WARP spec precludes this.

That's a use case that is definitely interesting, and I believe that there is interest in the group in supporting it.

> (FWIW, we're seriously considering Robin's suggestion that the BBC appoint me as a representative on the webapps WG, but right now I'm not a member.  Nevertheless I can put forward some implementation suggestions if that would be of interest to the group.)

It would be really great if you were to join this group. If you are already following this list, and willing to make implementation proposals, it wouldn't necessarily take more of your time than it already does  probably no more than an extra phone call now and then when we're discussing this topic (of course, if you want to get more involved, that's fine as well!). It would, however, help with the IPR thing.

We certainly welcome technical solutions in this area. The scope of WARP 1.0 was decided a while ago and since we need to ship it really shouldn't be extended *but* it would not be difficult to have a separate document that plugs on top of the existing one and that can be published quickly. Right now a lot of the hesitation stems from the fact that we don't really have a clear definition of what "local" is, so a solution that doesn't have that issue will certainly be good.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 11:25:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT