Re: A profile for TV

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:09:44 +0100, GAUSMAN, PAUL <pg2483@att.com> wrote:

> What if the profile was an IPTV Profile, instead of just a TV Profile.  
> That is clearer in my ears. Is there ever a case where we will be  
> addressing non-IP TV service?
>

There are hybrid deployment (e.g. satellite+internet) that could  
potentially use this profile as well.
There are multiple usage one can envision: non-ip connection could be use  
to carry interactive content or just to link to interactive content.

We are probably not interested in describing how the above is achieved (or  
at least not in a normative way), nonetheless the "language" used to write  
such interactive content can be the same (i.e. html+css+other web  
technology) regardless of the network used to carry it.

Since the browser will probably be the same (for both IP and non-IP  
content), it make sense to be able to author applications with the same  
set of languages.


/g

> Thanks!
> -Paul
>
> Q me
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giuseppe Pascale [mailto:giuseppep@opera.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 3:21 AM
> To: <david.corvoysier@orange.com> <david.corvoysier@orange.com>;  
> Vickers, Mark
> Cc: <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: A profile for TV
>
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:25:11 +0100, Vickers, Mark
> <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree that any profile work needs to target any device that can
>> receive a service. TVs, mobile, PCs and TVs should all use the same  
>> spec.
>>
>> The meaning of "TV" to me in the context of "TV Profile" refers to a
>> profile capable of receiving a video (i.e. "TV") service, not the TV
>> device. The "TV" term is, unfortunately, consistently confusing in this
>> regard.
>>
>
> Completely agree.
> Unfortunately I cannot come up with a better term and I also note that
> other groups working in this area also use the term "TV", so I think we
> are better off keep using it. Hopefully the document itself will clarify
> what is really intended when talking about TV services.
>
> /g
>
>> Thanks,
>> mav
>>
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2011, at 5:47 AM, <david.corvoysier@orange.com>
>>  <david.corvoysier@orange.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am not opposed to the definition of a TV profile, but before starting
>>> the discussions, I also think we need to agree on the objectives.
>>>> From a service provider point of view, the main driver of a W3C TV
>>> profile has to be interoperability accross a wide range of devices, and
>>> not compatibility with devices typically used in a specific ecosystem
>>> (that is in my opinion up to dedicated business fora to define these).
>>> Said differently, I am very interested in defining a W3C profile for TV
>>> services, ie identifying what would prevent a service provider from
>>> deploying the same TV web application on TVs, tablets, mobile phones  
>>> and
>>> desktops, but I am not really interested in defining a W3C profile for
>>> TV devices, ie deciding on which subset of the specifications an
>>> implementation on a specific range of TV devices can be tagged as HTML5
>>> compliant (because this kind of profile increases fragmentation instead
>>> of reducing it).
>>>
>>> David Corvoysier
>>> Orange Labs Networks & Carriers
>>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software

Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 08:07:02 UTC