W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > August 2011

Some comments on Home Network Enabled User-Agent use cases

From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:52:23 +0200
To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vz84hlpp6ugkrk@laptop>
Russell, all,
I'm going through the approved use cases once again and I have some additional comments. Sorry for not raising them before.

My comments are around some text, common to several ISSUEs (ISSUE-26, ISSUE-27,ISSUE-28, ISSUE-29).

#1 "Provide extensions to HTML5 <video>, <audio> elements to allow HTML5 to comply with Home Network Media Transport Requirements (mainly transport protocol specific headers)"

I think the expression "Home Network Media Transport Requirements" is pretty vague and also the term "provide extensions" seems misleading. Maybe this part could be rephrased with something like "Provide a mean to support additional transport specific headers"

#2 "Also, provide backward-compatible extensions to previous HTML versions to support similar functionality (presumably as browser-plugins)."
I think this is out of scope and should be removed. This is a product problem not a specification problem.

#3 "Allow pages to control future Home Network device classes where the comand sets are not currently known."
I think this should be removed as well. I cannot see how we could extract requirement or define a specification to comply with future and unknown requirements. Of course having a flexible architecture that is future proof is a good design goal (and I can add it as such to the requirement document) but I don't think it can be a requirement.


Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software - Sweden
Received on Monday, 15 August 2011 10:52:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:07 UTC