- From: François Daoust via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 16:17:56 +0000
- To: public-tvcontrol@w3.org
tidoust has just created a new issue for
https://github.com/w3c/tvcontrol-api:
== API surface and REST-based approach ==
The TAG makes the following comment that touches on (lengthy)
discussions the TV Control WG had on whether the API could better be
formulated as HTTP request/response exchanges:
[[
We're wondering if new APIs in this style might be phrased in a way
that has a smaller API surface area, e.g., HTTP request/response or
Service Worker Foreign Fetch
(https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2016/09/foreign-fetch)
May be possible to model many of the APIs here as locally-provided
HTTP services; e.g. this:
https://w3c.github.io/tvapi/spec/#tvsource-interface
Might instead be modeled as a set of requests and responses via
`fetch()`:
```js
fetch("https://example.com/services/v1/channels")
.then((resp) => {
resp.json().then((channels) => {
console.log(channels);
});
});
```
Open issues with a design like this involve a standard location for
such an RPC interface and a format for the returned data. This seems
like a good thing for a TV control interface spec to define, perhaps
using a system like [JSON Schema](http://json-schema.org/)
It's also unclear how the event-sending side of this might work, but
we're confident that can be overcome in the Foreign Fetch model,
perhaps by allowing FF responses to contain `MessagePort` objects.
]]
Please view or discuss this issue at
https://github.com/w3c/tvcontrol-api/issues/24 using your GitHub
account
Received on Friday, 4 November 2016 16:18:03 UTC