- From: Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:09:56 +0100
- To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, "Olivier Carmona" <ocarmona@awox.com>
- Cc: "Russell Berkoff" <r.berkoff@sisa.samsung.com>, "Giuseppe Pascale" <giuseppep@opera.com>
Hi Oliver, > The attempt of creating a new home networking effort would not only be > boiling the ocean again (your server / renderer approach below is rehash > of DLNA 1.0, quite outdated indeed), but even more concerning, I do not > see why you would leave aside an ecosystem of 440 million DLNA devices. I'm not very familiar with DLNA 1.0 - as I only have seen more recent versions. Could you describe in more detail where you think the similarities are? If DLNA underwent a radical architectural change (moving away from the approach I described to what it has now), it could be informative to know if there were particular reasons for it. In the possible scenario I described, many of those existing DLNA devices would be still involved. Content discovery and streaming of the media would be left up to the server/renderer to handle for itself. Therefore, such devices might well use existing technologies such as UPnP/DLNA to do this, in order to not leave aside that existing ecosystem of devices that can serve content. I would see home networking API as providing a more abstracted control layer; and devices using existing technologies, as described, to carry out the requests made. regards Matt -- | Matt Hammond | Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London | http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 11:10:37 UTC