W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-websignage@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Gap analysis: SCXML (was Re: Gap analysis: SMIL)

From: Futomi Hatano <futomi.hatano@newphoria.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:18:45 +0900
To: ashimura@w3.org
Cc: public-websignage@w3.org
Message-Id: <20121207151845.917D.17D6BAFB@newphoria.co.jp>
Hi Kaz and all,

I had forgotten INNES's proposal.
Thanks for bringing it back to me.

I'm wondering if complicated scenarios should be achieved
by a declarative approach.
I think a declarative approach works well in simple scenarios.
Most of existing signage contents are very simple.

For complicated scenarios, scripting is better.
I suppose that such complicated scenarios are rare actually.

I'm not familiar with SCXML for now.
I'm sorry in advance if I'm saying strange things.

Basically, "Web-based Signage" is "HTML-based Signage",
not "XML-based Signage" in my mind.

It's 
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">...</html>

not
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<smil>...</smil>

nor 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<scxml>...</scxml>

But this is possible.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
  <head>...</head>
  <body>
    <svg>...</svg>
    <!-- If many people want, could be... -->
    <smil>...</smil>
    <scxml>...</scxml>
  </body>
</html>

Web browsers are installed in various type of devices widely,
not only PC, smartphone but also TV, IVI, etc.
Besides, we can use various JavaScript APIs.
We can enhance functionality using scripts easily.

SMIL browsers and SCXML browsers aren't popular.
Technically, SMIL and SCXML could be ideal for creating signage contents.
But XML-based approach isn't realistic in real life for now, I think.

To all,
How do you think?
This discussion is really important for us.
Should we consider SCXML for a declarative approach at this time?
Do you think "Web-based Signage" is "HTML-based Signage" or not?
I'd like to hear your opinions.

To Kaz,
Thank you for raising a important question.

Cheers,
Futomi


On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:39:16 +0900
Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Futomi,
> 
> Thanks for providing your view.
> 
> However, I'm not sure why you don't think SCXML is "realistic".
> 
> I thought Innes did mention during the June workshop that they
> used SCXML and proposed to use it as a way to express interactive
> state transition for advanced signage services.
> 
> Please see page 23 of their slides at:
>  
> http://www.w3.org/2012/06/signage/slides/Innes/Innes-press-Digital-Signage-Workshop-W3C-June-2012-Japan.pdf
> 
> So I think SCXML should be also included in the gap analysis [1],
> though there is of course a possibility it won't be included
> in the final Requirements document.
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/community/websignage/wiki/Web-based_Signage_Use_cases_and_Requirements#R1._Making_contents_using_a_declarative_approach
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kazuyuki
> 
> 
> On 12/07/2012 01:15 PM, Futomi Hatano wrote:
> > On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 04:55:11 +0900
> > Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> >> For example, as I mentioned at the Web-based Signage Workshop in June
> >> [1], even SCXML could be another "related existing standard" here.
> >>
> >> Also we should concentrate on thinking about "what is actually
> >> necessary and valuable" as Charles mentioned above rather than
> >> rejecting any possibilities at least at the gap analysis stage.
> >
> > Thanks for letting me know about SCXML.
> > Although SCXML could be a candidate for new-gen SMIL
> > as you mentioned at the workshop, I think it has lower possibility
> > to be accepted by signage industry than SMIL.
> >
> > It seems to be similar to the topic discussed in W3C and
> > web communities years ago: "XHTML 2 vs. HTML5".
> > I think SMIL supporters in signage industry would like to
> > extend SMIL rather than adopting or developing a new language.
> >
> > Although the doc should include all possibilities as gap analysis,
> > it must be realistic. I don't think SCXML is realistic for now.
> > "Realistic" means the possibility that SCXML will be implemented
> > in web browsers and there are some supporters.
> > As far as I know, no one in signage industry support SCXML.
> > So I don't think we need to add SCXML in the doc now.
> >
> > At least, SMIL is realistic. there are some enthusiastic supporters,
> > and it has already implemented some web browsers, and we can
> > use it (maybe animation only) in HTML through inline SVG now.
> >
> > But I don't deny SCXML completely. If it become realistic
> > and we believe it is useful for creating signage contents,
> > then we should consider it.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Futomi
> >
> > --
> > Newphoria Corporation
> > Chief Technology Officer
> > Futomi Hatano
> > --
> > futomi.hatano@newphoria.co.jp
> > http://www.newphoria.co.jp/
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
> Tel: +81 466 49 1170

--
Newphoria Corporation
Chief Technology Officer
Futomi Hatano
--
futomi.hatano@newphoria.co.jp
http://www.newphoria.co.jp/
Received on Friday, 7 December 2012 06:20:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 December 2012 06:20:05 GMT