Re: DAP rechartering discussion

Would the Device And Policy APIs WG (DAP) be interested in looking at APIs  
not just within the device itself (for accessing on-board device  
functions) but also defining web style APIs between devices?

My personal belief is that the strengths of the TV is as a primary (though  
not exclusively!) shared and "lean-back" experience. I think it makes  
sense to put in place the means to allow web applications on other devices  
to interact with the TV. A lot of the functions/user-experience that might  
traditionally be considered the domain of an on-screen "widget" could be  
migrated off the TV screen to more powerful and easier to interact with  
device, but without losing that connection to the TV content.

Our "Universal Control" API work, in the BBC, makes the functionality of  
the TV queryable and controllable via a high level data model that tries  
to abstract away from device and service implementation specifics. Its a  
RESTful web based API intended to be served by the TV (or set-top-box)  
itself. We'd hope our work so far could be a useful kick start for work in  
this area. Components of such an API could be generalised and be useful  
for other classes of devices.

My colleague Olivier posted a few details (including links to our spec  
docs) just a few days ago:

Could this kind of area be a logical and productive progression for DAP's  


On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:27:39 -0000, Mark Watson <>  

> [+ Web & TV Interest Group]
> Should the device types mentioned in the new Device And Policy APIs  
> recharter proposal be expanded to include TVs and other such devices  
> which increasingly make use of web technologies ?
> ... Mark
> On Mar 11, 2011, at 5:44 AM, <> wrote:
>> Deutsche Telekom supports the new DAP charter proposal [1], but asks for
>> some clarifications and/or changes.
>> Chapter 1 "Goals" explicitly mentions security and privacy and proposes
>> "... reusing existing browser-based security metaphors where they apply
>> and looking into innovative security and privacy mechanisms where they
>> don't."
>> On the other hand section 2.2. "Out of scope" explicitly excludes
>> further thinking about a policy framework. This limits the possibilities
>> of "innovative security and privacy mechanisms", since one potential
>> solution is precluded beforehand. We know about the discussions in the
>> past, but we think it should be left up to the discussions during the
>> charter period if a policy framework is the right way to go or not.
>> Furthermore the scope of the work explicitly mentions different types of
>> devices ("Devices in this context include desktop computers, laptop
>> computers, mobile Internet devices (MIDs), cellular phones."). Therefore
>> we think it would be appropriate to add another success criteria which
>> requires implementations for different device types before going to W3C
>> Rec (especially mobile and desktop devices) to make sure that the APIs
>> are implementable in the different environments which are explicitly in
>> scope of DAP.
>> ... Ingmar.
>> [1]

| Matt Hammond
| Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London

Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 21:45:24 UTC