- From: FUNAHASHI Yosuke <yfuna@tomo-digi.co.jp>
- Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:54:45 +0900
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>, Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>, public-web-and-tv@w3.org, "Pfeffer, Heiko" <heiko.pfeffer@fokus.fraunhofer.de>, 이현재 <hj08.lee@lge.com>
Hi Charles, all, > 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. I agree with you. Regards, Yosuke On 2010/10/05, at 8:30, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > 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. > > cheers > > Chaals > >> 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 Tuesday, 5 October 2010 06:56:21 UTC