Re: [DRAFT] Web Intents Task Force Charter

--  
Marcos Caceres


On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Rich Tibbett wrote:

> Marcos Caceres wrote:
> >  
> > On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> >  
> > > It's important to separate Intents as currently proposed and what we collectively want out of them. In order to move fast we probably don't want to pile up a zillion features there, but we equally certainly don't want this to turn into a rubber-stamping exercise. So bring the UCs on!
> > >  
> > > - Hide quoted message -
> > > > Perhaps someone could take the time to describe exactly how a user could communicate with an existing TV device in their home from a web browser supporting web intents based on the above requirements?
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > We actually agreed that folks in the Discovery/Home Networking gang would do just that, to see if it flies.
> > Also, a prototype might help here …. i.e., it's not up to the WG to explain how it does what you want, but up to you to show that it doesn't do something you want through a prototype (or similar) to do. If your prototype breaks down because the intents system doesn't work without extensions, then we have something to work from.
> >  
> > Agree?
>  
> Yes. I don't doubt this logic :)
A use case I keep thinking about is:  
  
 1. I'm at Youtube.com, and I want to watch a video on my tv.  
 2. I tell youtube, "hey, sent this to my TV".  
 3. Video starts playing on my TV.   
 4. I turn the audio up/down on the youtube video (or I scrub the timeline). How does that work? Is that all still done over HTTP and the intent (i.e., the audio control)?  

I guess it's like the "intent" is ongoing while some activity is happening (watching the video on my tv). I don't know if the current proposal supports such a thing or if it's more "fire and forget".  

Anyway, just thinking out loud… guess we can pick this up in the new list.

Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 19:22:34 UTC