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

Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Comments on "Application Communication" requirement

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>
Message-ID: <op.v0x3h3e46ugkrk@giuseppep-x220>
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

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