- From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:11:54 +0100
- To: "Matt Hammond" <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>, "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, "Olivier Thereaux" <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 23:32:09 +0100, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > Matt, Olivier, > > The Universal Remote protocol looks great. At what level, though, would > you expect there to be a need for standardization ? > > I can presumably implement both client and server side of the protocol > using HTML/CSS/Javascript (if I can't then there's a need for > standardization right away), so what would remain would be > device/application discovery and the initial security aspects. > > i.e. how does the Universal Remote client discover that there is a > nearby TV supporting the Universal Remote server application (or capable > of supporting it) and ask the TV to launch that application (or kick off > installation) ? > This would fit nicely in the "home networking" discussion we started in Berlin and presumably we will continue to discuss here soon. @Matt, Oliver Honestly, I haven't had time to look into your work yet. How do you think it would fit into a more generic work around "home networking API", that is devices discovery and control inside the home network (UPnP-like)? /g > ...Mark > > On Mar 11, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Matt Hammond wrote: > >> 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: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Mar/0013.html >> >> Could this kind of area be a logical and productive progression for >> DAP's >> mission? >> >> >> >> Matt >> >> >> >> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 16:27:39 -0000, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> >> wrote: >> >>> [+ 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, <Ingmar.Kliche@telekom.de> 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] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/DeviceAPICharter.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> | Matt Hammond >> | Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London >> | http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/ >> > -- Giuseppe Pascale TV & Connected Devices Opera Software - Sweden
Received on Monday, 14 March 2011 11:15:14 UTC