- From: Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:26:18 +0100
- To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, "Giuseppe Pascale" <giuseppep@opera.com>
Hi Giuseppe, On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:20:43 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote: >> Adding a Gap Analysis section as suggested makes a lot of sense in >> order to show how fulfilling one or two core requirements represent a >> technical gap, which when filled can enable the meeting of other >> requirements through the creation of further code/services/tools. But >> for many of the remaining requirements, the further JS code or services >> that will fulfill them do not exist - so surely they are still >> requirements? >> > yes. That was the intent of the text I wrote. The message should be > "this is the technical gap that, once filled, could enable most of our > usa-cases. Once you have such gap filled, you can verify if this > assumption is correct, if not more work could be needed. > > If you agree with the message, but you fill is not correcty/completely > reflect in my proposed text, could you help me improving it? I'm mostly happy with the text you wrote, but agreed with JCD that Service Discovery is the 2nd technical gap. I believe you reflected this is the last draft you wrote - so I would be happy with that. many thanks Matt -- | Matt Hammond | Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London | http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 13:27:06 UTC