Re: WG draft charter and Phase 2 proposals

Hi Sangwhan,

On 11/29/2015 3:45 PM, Sangwhan Moon wrote:
> (I swear to god I subscribed to this list - still baffles me why I'm not getting mail. For now, please CC me.)
>
>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 8:32 PM, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org <mailto:fd@w3.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> Handling of non-TV "channels" (such as HDMI inputs).
>>> -----
>>> This is currently in scope of the draft WG charter.
>>> However, it does not map directly to the notion of tuner, channel and
>>> program currently defined in the spec.
>>> I wonder if it could not be addressed in a future revision of the spec and/or
>>> perhaps even in a separate spec that the CG could define.
>>>
>>> Sangwhan, I think this feature was added based on your feedback, what is
>>> your take on this?
>
> As noted, it does not quite fit in the design of the spec as it stands. That said, the fact that it doesn't handle this puts the spec in a interesting position.
>
> If it is intended for content, my humble opinion is that the [1] API gives out *way* too much power. (There is also the other issue about security and resource racing.)
>
> If it is to implement a web OS of some sort (which seems to be more likely) it's most likely feature incomplete. It would be a hasty move to say "ship it out first and let's fix later, living standard style" - while updates did become easier, it's not something as casual as shipping a update to the app store.

Thanks for the feedback. The current draft charter leaves some leeway that would allow to define features at the "OS level" linked to a specific conformance class, but it is more oriented towards content than towards a web OS specification (with all the power constraints that this may entail). If the intent is to implement a web OS, then the draft charter should be explicit about that, first to ensure that this does not come as a surprise to anyone, and second to give the group more freedom on the security model they might wish to adopt.


>
> Putting the political discussion aside, pragmatically speaking - retrofitting this into the current design as a special type of TVChannel would be the easiest way to integrate it into the spec, but it's not super pretty.
>
> If the consensus thinks that's the way to go, I can send in a PR with the needed changes - since I've sent out the disclaimer. As noted, it won't be pretty and won't win any software design awards and probably would have easily got you a F for effort in a OOP class, but what works works.

At this stage, what I'm personally interested in is understanding what people would like to see in the draft WG charter. However, this exercise certainly does not prevent the CG from working on the spec as usual. Feel free to propose technical updates to the spec, no matter how ugly! :)


> If we do go down the "special channel" route, this does bring up the question "what about recording HDMI, should/does that even work", followed shortly by "what about HDCP", then followed by "what about sources that are HDCP unlocked, but then gets locked, then unlocked again or a negate of that sequence" - which is when one gets the strong desire to just drink beer and forget about everything. (I'm not formally raising these issues, just noting that they exist - DRM is not a topic of interest on my agenda.)

All good points, beer included ;)

Thanks,
Francois.

Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2015 15:11:04 UTC