- From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:31:05 +0200
- To: "Jean-Claude Dufourd" <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, "Bob Lund" <B.Lund@cablelabs.com>, "Matt Hammond" <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 21:49:33 +0200, Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote: > Definitely agree with Bob that this requirement should be expressed in > terms of how there needs to be discovery in order to initiate > communication. > > Thinking about the use of the term 'services': should this be phrased in > terms of 'applications' throughout, rather than 'services'? > Communication with services is already covered by other requirements. > This particular requirement originated from the "Local Link for Web > Applications" use case[1]: > > http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#U14:_Local_Link_of_Web_Applications > Agree. It seems to me we need 2 requirements. We can leave the one about "service communication" as phrased below, plus I would add the following: "Application communication: Conforming specifications should provide a means for applications running in different user-agents to exchange messages directly via the home network." Bob, Matt, what do you think? /g > regards > > > Matt > > On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:08:04 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale > <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:13:38 +0200, Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I agree but I think it should be stated in terms of access to services >>> discovered on the home network: >>> >>> "Service communication: Conforming specifications should provide a >>> means for a client to exchange messages directly via the home network >>> with services discovered in the home network." >>> >> As discussed I changed this into >> >> "Service communication: Conforming specifications should provide a >> means for an application to exchange messages directly via the home >> network with services discovered in the home network." >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Service_communication >> >> /g >> >>> Bob >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-and-tv- >>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Claude Dufourd >>>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 9:05 AM >>>> To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org >>>> Subject: Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Comments on "Application Communication" >>>> requirement >>>> >>>> I strongly support this clarification about direct communication. >>>> Best regards >>>> JC >>>> >>>> On 22/8/11 16:44 , Giuseppe Pascale wrote: >>>> > On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:20:43 +0200, Matt Hammond >>>> > <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Hi all, >>>> >> >>>> >> Apologies for this being a little later than I originally intended: >>>> >> as I mentioned in last week's conf call, I have a comment regarding >>>> >> the "Application Communication" requirement. >>>> >> >>>> >> Would it be helpful to clarify that this requirement is >>>> specifically >>>> >> intended to enable direct communication between applications? This >>>> >> would be to distinguish it from an implementation that (for >>>> example) >>>> >> sent all communications through a cloud based relay or proxying >>>> service? >>>> >> >>>> >> For example: "Conforming specifications should provide a means for >>>> >> applications to exchange messages directly via the home network >>>> with >>>> >> other applications running on a different user agent in the home >>>> >> network." >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > Hi Matt, >>>> > thanks for raising this in writing. >>>> > I agree that several (all?) of the use cases we have discussed >>>> require >>>> > (preferably) a direct communication. I think this is pretty >>>> > uncontroversial and could add it right away to the requirement >>>> document. >>>> > Some of the use cases could actually be covered by an indirect >>>> > communication mechanism as well, so probably also that would be in >>>> > scope. On other end such a mechanism may either not need >>>> (additional) >>>> > standardization or fall back to the a different discussion about >>>> which >>>> > services could be standardized. >>>> > >>>> > So in short I'm fine to re-word the requirement as you suggested if >>>> > nobody objects. >>>> > >>>> > /g >>>> > >>>> >> regards >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Matt >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> JC Dufourd >>>> Directeur d'Etudes/Professor >>>> Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group >>>> Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing Telecom >>>> ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France >>>> Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144 >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Received on Sunday, 28 August 2011 22:31:53 UTC