- From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:33:05 +0200
- To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org, "Jean-Claude Dufourd" <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:10:08 +0200, Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote: > Dear all, > > I want to ask my question again in writing, because I did not get an > answer during the call and yet I think we need to answer it in order to > know what to do with ISSUE-17. > What is the intent of ISSUE-17 ? > Is it to standardize a list of API calls, the first of which (in the > text) being "list discoverable home network media servers" ? > Or is it to standardize a generic messaging API, and check that > everything listed in ISSUE-17 is possible ? > This actually applies to more than just ISSUE-17 > > If it is the first, then it is meaningful to discuss ISSUE-17 in detail, > bullet by bullet. So we would need a lot of telco time. > If it is the second, then I believe it is not meaningful to discuss > ISSUE-17 bullet by bullet, but just keep the list for later validation > of the standard. If so we should not have spent as much time on it in > today's telco. > > Then my opinion on this subject is that we should only standardize a > small, low-level API for generic messaging, and not a very large set of > high-level messages that would never be up-to-date in the rapidly > evolving ecosystem of the home network. > We should definitely design a standard that allows a document to call > any of the UPnP/DLNA services mentioned in ISSUE-17, but does not > duplicate the UPnP/DLNA service interfaces. This is my opinion as well. But even if we design a generic API, some scenarios may suggest extensions to existing technologies (<video>?) so I think it still make sense to have the list (as is in ISSUE-17) of more detailed use cases; Furthermore, even though there are existing technologies covering the scenarios listed in ISSUE-17 (e.g. UPnP/DLNA),there could be complementary approaches/technologies that could be considered to cover some of these scenarios in different ecosystems. So in short I personally think is good to keep ISSUE-17 as it is; no need to extend more. Is also good to mention existing HN protocols (UPnP, DNS-SD) but not to limit ourself to them. /g > Best regards > JC > -- Giuseppe Pascale TV & Connected Devices Opera Software - Sweden
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 08:33:37 UTC