- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:44:16 -0400
- To: "Giuseppe Pascale" <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Cc: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:18:51 -0400, Jan Lindquist <jan.lindquist@ericsson.com> wrote: > ... Based on some of the discussions at workshop I suggest that one of > the initial scopes is to identify the main use cases related to "web on > TV". Proposed rewording of first bullet: > > - Identify the important use cases to be worked on by the "web on TV" IG. The IG should be identifying use cases and requirements. The work of fixing HTML, or making new APIs, or whatever is required, belongs in existing or new working groups, not the IG. > I am missing a bullet to evaluate the alternatives for the use cases. > The 2nd bullet jumps directly to the different W3C groups. After > evaluation one can go into the different W3C groups or external groups. That was deliberate. Evaluating the alternatives - selecting a solution and developing it - is something that should be done in a Working Group, not in the Interest Group. > Rewording of 3rd bullet: > > - Determine limitations of the use cases with existing terminals and > identify potential solutions. I wanted to be general enough that we could cover both existing terminals and devices under development. > Rewording of 4th bullet: > > - Exchange information with other standard forums which may have worked > on similar use cases. Makes sense to me. I would add an explicit note to say that where there is consensus that existing work done in a different organisation is the most appropriate solution, it should reference that work rather than duplicate it. cheers Chaals -- 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 Thursday, 23 September 2010 18:44:57 UTC