Re: webtv-Issue-20: TV Querying and Control

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:08:46 +0200, Russell Berkoff  
<> wrote:

> Hello Giuseppe,
> I believe UPnP specs are RANDZ and companies can join the UPnP Forum  
> (Basic membership) for no-cost.
> It seems W3C could benefit from the 10+ years of experience UPnP  
> accumulated while working to provide solutions for  CE ecosystem devices.
> I dont see how setting "artificial" barriers to cooperation between the  
> organizations will be beneficial?

Hi Russell,
I carefully selected where to place my comment but apparently it was  
misleading anyway.

What I mean is that CEA-2014-B binding to UPnP is not an open standard.

As I mentioned already in other places, I don't have anything against  
looking into what UPnP forum has done and reusing their experience.
Of course we need to see what is the best way to integrate this in the  
open web platform,
and this is why I always say we should be more generic and not end up  
making a UPnP profile.

There are several technical solutions for this,
and I'm more then happy to discuss with UPnP experts as well as with  
people from other groups and domains.

In many discussion we seem to end up discussing pros and cons of UPnP, and  
I don't think that is the best way forward.
I personally don't suffer from the NIH syndrome so I welcome an open  
discussion on anything that can be of interest.
Let's bring up all the different options so we will be later able to make  
an informed discussion/choice.


> Regards,
> Russell Berkoff
> ________________________________
> From: Giuseppe Pascale []
> Sent: Tue 6/14/2011 3:19 AM
> To:; Russell Berkoff; Matt Hammond
> Subject: Re: webtv-Issue-20: TV Querying and Control
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:14:54 +0200, Matt Hammond
> <> wrote:
>>> *    Standardisation could facilitate a new ecosystem of interfaces.
>>> *    Existing standards for home network communication are not
>>> available from the browser context
>>> Actually CEA-2014-B has a web-binding for UPnP devices.
> But the question we are asking ourselves is: is it possible to cover this
> use case using open web standards?
>>> PHP has a
>>> binding for UPnP Devices (GUPnP). A desirable goal of this TF is to  
>>> have
>>> W3C also publish these (or similar bindings).
>> The intention with this statement was to point to the current lack of
>> ability to access technologies (such as UPnP) *directly* from within,
>> for example, a browser running on an iPad, android device, or laptop. I
>> believe the interests of many in this TF is to plug precisely this gap
>> for the likes of UPnP.
> The goal is either to see if there are suitable open standards to reuse  
> or
> if we need to define something new, as needed.
> And even though there are some existing standards we may want to support
> (e.g. UPnP) we should not restrict ourselves to this since there could be
> several reasons (technical, commercial etc) why one would want to
> implement the same use case using a different underlying technology. The
> question for the future WG would then be: can this be achieved with a
> common approach? This is up for discussion, and we had already a first
> brainstorming as captured by Clarke in ISSUE-9
> That is why I think, once again, we should keep our usecases generic
> enough.
> Mentioning UPnP, Bonjour, Bluetooth etc is fine IFF 1)there is a
> justification for it (X% devices on the market already support this) 2)we
> don't restrict ourselves to that.
> This taskforce is not a UPnP TF, so we are not doing a gap analysis of
> UPnP.
> /g
> --
> Giuseppe Pascale
> TV & Connected Devices
> Opera Software - Sweden

Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software - Sweden

Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:00:25 UTC