Re: [profile] A new TF for the TV Profile

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:31:24 +0100, GAUSMAN, PAUL <pg2483@att.com> wrote:

> The DLNA group is looking at this under the heading of "web intents".
>
I don't think there is a relationship between web intents and the TV  
profile, they are two completely different things.

/g


> Thanks!
> -Paul
>
> Q me
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GAUSMAN, PAUL
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:32 PM
> To: 'Scott Wilson'; Giuseppe Pascale
> Cc: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [profile] A new TF for the TV Profile
>
> Has anyone addressed a comparison or synergy of this with CEA-2014?  
> There's a DLNA group looking at this and I've heard it proposed that  
> there is overlap. They started some time ago. I'm just beginning to talk  
> with them.
>
> Thanks!
> -Paul
>
> Q me
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Wilson [mailto:scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:43 PM
> To: Giuseppe Pascale
> Cc: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [profile] A new TF for the TV Profile
>
> On 19 Jan 2012, at 18:23, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> given the interest in working on the TV profile as announced in [1], is  
>> probably good to start a new TF in charge of it.
>>
>> I'll work in the following days to create a wiki page for such new TF.
>> If someone is willing to chair this new TF, please let me know.
>> About phone calls, the idea was to start with bi-weekly calls, let me  
>> know if there are any objections to this.
>>
>> Finally, feedbacks on the profile document (that meanwhile got some  
>> more text) are welcome
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/tvprofile/tv.html
>>
>> The document contains some open question you may want to share your  
>> opinion on.
>> Other open question where contribution are welcome are:
>>
>> - which technologies are fundamental for TV deployments and should be  
>> included in the profile?
>
> I think there needs to be a section on web application packaging and  
> metadata referencing W3C Widgets: Packaging and Configuration [1]; an  
> issue identified in several submissions to the Future of Offline Web  
> Applications meeting was competing non-interoperable packaging formats  
> affecting TV/STB web app deployment. Some vendors are already using  
> similar packaging formats (e.g Samsung's smart TV profile); there is  
> also work taking place in the Webinos[2] project on extending W3C  
> Widgets for TV applications.
>
>> - how do we address evaluation of performances?
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/tvprofile/tv.html#performances
>> - what kind of input methods should be considered?
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/tvprofile/tv.html#input-methods
>
> I think traditional Remote Control input methods are a basic requirement  
> for TV-based apps, as are virtual keyboards (most TV interfaces use both  
> in combination). Further down the line, there is Kinect-type camera  
> input coming from Samsung.
>
>>
>> Feel free to share your opinion but also to point to existing work in  
>> these areas.
>>
>> /g
>>
>> --
>> Giuseppe Pascale
>> TV & Connected Devices
>> Opera Software
>>
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/
> [2] http://dev.webinos.org/specifications/draft/tv.html


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software

Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 08:32:17 UTC