W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > October 2010

Re: IG charter: modification suggestion - Scope & Decision

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 01:30:02 +0200
To: "Giuseppe Pascale" <giuseppep@opera.com>, "Daniel Park" <soohongp@gmail.com>
Cc: "Kazuyuki Ashimura" <ashimura@w3.org>, public-web-and-tv@w3.org, "Pfeffer, Heiko" <heiko.pfeffer@fokus.fraunhofer.de>, 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com>, "FUNAHASHI Yosuke" <yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp>
Message-ID: <op.vj2rkcnuwxe0ny@widsith.local>
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:33:31 +0200, Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com> wrote:

> I see. It seems not easy to define “TV-like devices”. Tele-Vision,
> IP-Vision, etc...ITU-T spent much time for defining IPTV before (almost 6
> month or a bit longer). I'm a bit afraid of this point. Personally, I  
> prefer not to include this ambiguoug word as “TV-like devices” into the
> charter.

I understand the fear of spending a long time defining words...

But I think the important point is that rather than having a strict  
definition of language, we want to work on useful technology, that is  
"related to TV", which is why the charter is a bit vague and open to  
interpretation. After all, some people watch broadcast TV on mobile  
phones, while I only use the TV in my house as a way to access internet  
services (although it also gets used to watch TV), and other friends of  
mine only watch TV through their computers.

If someone comes up with what they think is a great idea for TV, and  
nobody else in the interest group is interested, it will be pretty clear  
that for now that idea won't be widely considered part of TV. If somebody  
comes up with a great idea that the group clearly thinks is important to  
TV, then it is likely to get uptake in the TV industry (whether from  
broadcasters, OEMs, content producers, or something else) and therefore it  
will be part of TV.

Which is a much easier way of deciding than trying to carefully write a  
written description of exactly what is or isn't a TV.



> Daniel
> (from my Galaxy S)
> 2010. 10. 5. 오전 12:22에 "Giuseppe Pascale" <giuseppep@opera.com>님이  
> 작성:
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:29:25 +0200, Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> 2010/10/4 Pfeffer, He...
> Hi Daniel,
> first of all thanks for your interest.
> About the question "what is a TV", I think one of the goals of this IG
> (note: not a WG) is exactly to better define which devices should be
> considered as part of the "TV" experience.
> So mainly and more naturally TV sets but this doesn't exclude for example
> companion devices and other devices used in the home environment (and not
> only).
> That's why the drafts talks about "TV devices and TV-like devices". A  
> more
> precise definition and understanding will be hopefully be one of the
> outcomes of the discussion we will have in the next months.
> best regards,
> Giuseppe
>> Daniel

Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 23:31:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:02 UTC