Re: HTML5 TV Profile versus CEA2014

On 1/18/12 3:29 PM, "GAUSMAN, PAUL" <> wrote:

>A thought or two about "WebTV" issues in HTML5:
>       Someone commented that "TV" is often confused with a device
>instead of being thought of as a service. Additionally, I believe that
>"WebTV" is being at times confused with an emulation of traditional TV
>services with the addition of recent features like VoD, trick modes,
>interaction, etc. To me, WebTV may be best thought of as a potential for
>not only legacy and recent TV service instances, but anything which
>includes digital media with a temporal aspect.

Legacy support is important to enable existing service providers to
migrate to WebTV and continue to offer the services they are currently
offering. These services are often required by regulation and, in general,
have solid business cases behind them so it's important that they exist on
new WebTV clients.

>       Creating a profile which lays out the support for legacy and
>recent TV service features is very useful but if that's all it is, then
>it is limiting. Folks who want to expand or morph TV in the future into
>new experiences will not be supported by such a profile, unless it
>includes methods for these extensions.

I agree - even the legacy providers want to take advantage of new
technology capabilities and morph into the future.

>Perhaps this concern is already addressed in the vision of the TV Profile
>in the minds of the IG. Does anyone agree or disagree with my
>observations here?

I think both the legacy and future perspective are important and need to
be considered.

Bob Lund

>Q me
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Giuseppe Pascale []
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 7:29 AM
>To:; Jacques DUMAREST
>Subject: Re: HTML5 TV Profile versus CEA2014
>Dear Jacques,
>is difficult to give a full reply to the first part of your question (if
>CEA or any other group is working on html5 profile) without violating
>confidentiality of such groups.
>What I can "observe" is that some organizations like OIPF have already
>referenced parts of HTML5 (& co) in their published specifications; it is
>expected that some others are working on HTML5 profiles as well.
>The risk once again is that each group comes up with similar but slightly
>different solutions. That is why I believe would be beneficial to get W3C
>involved in such activities (and this IG to act as the first contact
>This is the reason why we started to discuss the possibility of a TV
>profile in this group, as announced in [1], with latest draft available in
>My proposal would be for this group to reach out to other relevant
>industry groups once we have reached a critical mass.
>Anyway since this forum is public, individuals can already promote this
>activity externally.
>Note that IMO we should not /cannot replace what groups like the ones you
>mention have done and will do. Our aim should be to help such groups to
>correctly reference and use a set of web technology in a way that do not
>disrupt the web ecosystem.
>The final goal should be to minimize differences between all these
>On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:48:04 +0100, Jacques DUMAREST
><> wrote:
>> Current standards such as DLNA, DTG, HbbTV are relying on CEA2014B for
>> Remote UI, and CEA2014 is based on HTML4.01. OTT standards evolution
>> will definitively want to take advantage of HTML5 new features:
>> Audio/Video tag, graphic, .... Do you know if CEA is planning to propose
>> an evolution of CEA2014/CE-HTML based on HTML5, or do you think it is up
>> to W3C & Web & TV IG to propose such a profile / standard?
>> Thanks and Best Regards
>> Jacques Dumarest
>Giuseppe Pascale
>TV & Connected Devices
>Opera Software

Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 23:22:54 UTC