- 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