RE: Some comments on Home Network Enabled User-Agent use cases

All,

Regarding #1, I think this is a user-agent requirement rather than an HTML5 <video>, <audio> requirement which is codec and transport agnostic.

Bob

From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Giuseppe Pascale
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 4:52 AM
To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Subject: Some comments on Home Network Enabled User-Agent use cases

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.


cheers,
/g











--
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software - Sweden