- From: Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:20:15 -0800
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: "public-new-work@w3.org" <public-new-work@w3.org>, olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk>, Pablo Cesar <P.S.Cesar@cwi.nl>
I think we agree. Marie-José Montpetit marie@mjmontpetit.com mariejo@mit.edu > On Nov 5, 2013, at 17:16, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > At least in some bodies, such as MPEG, I have argued that the number of physical screens, or indeed how many physical devices, that are used, is really something that is out of scope (i.e. MPEG expresses the characteristics of the content). > > I think we should be careful not to constrain implementations in our assumptions. It might be better to speak of ancillary content, and so on. > > How I design a 'distributed client' that uses multiple devices to present an experience is probably up to me. The most we may need to say is to have some way of saying that these two pieces of visual content should be presented "together" but their layup is up to the client (i.e. they haev no pre-defined spatial relationship). > >> On Nov 5, 2013, at 23:24 , Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com> wrote: >> >> Re-send of a reply to the web and TV IG. >> >>> I would support such a group and would like to participate but the vocable "second screen" is now a misnomer as a the tablet is becoming the first screen. How about the "companion screen" instead. In any case good idea as the demands of the non traditional screening devices require new APIs. I would probably be interesting to link this work to some of the webrtc work as well as to some of the "acceleration" mechanisms proposed in the IETF which while not directly related to the "how the device is connected" is inherently linked to user experience. >> >> /mjm >> Marie-Jose Montpetit >> mariejo@mit.edu >> >> >> > > David Singer > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. >
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2013 01:20:44 UTC