Re: ISSUE-179 av_param: Chairs Solicit Proposals

Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:

>
>On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:01 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
>> (However, I have a hard time believing that there'd be key-value
>pairs
>> that wouldn't be useful for Web content but would be good ideas for
>> multivendor walled gardens like cable TV. That is, I'm predisposed to
>> assume that either HTML is missing features that should be defined in
>> HTML proper or the additional features are bad ideas and shouldn't be
>> specced by DLNA, either.
>
>I very much agree with this comment.
>
>The worst thing for those of us trying to make use of the web platform
>in new contexts (such as on TVs) is to have to read and understand
>thousands of pages of minor differences and extensions specified by
>umpteen different and opaque standards organizations.
>
>Certainly, some of the devices those groups are concerned with have
>features and capabilities that haven't traditionally been present on
>PCs running desktop browsers, but this shouldn't stop people bringing
>those extensions here to enable access to those capabilities in a
>consistent way.
>
>...Mark

I couldn't agree more. This is also the reason why the web&tv IG got created,as a place to discuss needs to be eventually brought to the attention of related working groups.

Received on Sunday, 6 November 2011 07:42:42 UTC