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

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:12:20 +0100, Scott Wilson  
<scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote:

> It may be worth noting that many Blu-Ray players are also capable of  
> deploying installed web apps , e.g. Panasonic DMP-BDT110, Sony BD-BX18.  
> So perhaps the definition of "STB" needs to be slightly broader, or  
> these kinds of players added to the range of example devices.
>
correct. Both options sound good but since nowadays there are many devices  
that are kind of hybrid (STB with disc and USB connection or DVD player  
with tuner etc) I think I can just extend the term STB to include such  
devices


> On 20 Jan 2012, at 12:20, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:42:46 +0100, Scott Wilson  
>> <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Good suggestion. W3C widgets is now W3C Recommendation and is  
>> referenced by several TV specs, for example OIPF specs.
>>
>> I added a section about the application model and about client side  
>> applications.
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/tvprofile/tv.html#client-side-applications
>>
>> For now I only added a reference to the packaging spec, but we need to  
>> consider other specs of the widgets family
>>
>>>> - 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,
>>
>> There are two issues here:
>> - remote controls are evolving and devices addressed by this  
>> specification are not only TV sets/STB. So we need to consider the  
>> option that a "traditional" remote control is not available.
>> - historically different specifications have used slightly different  
>> approaches to handling of rc inputs.
>> When those specs were written, DOM didn't have specific support for RC  
>> control input.
>>
>> Now there is some text in the DOM3 spec
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Events/
>>
>> but AFAIK nobody has implemented it yet. We should discuss how to  
>> proceed in this area, if deprecate old approaches in favour of the DOM3  
>> approach or if we should talk to the group working on the DOM3 document  
>> and propose an alternative approach.
>>
>>> as are virtual keyboards (most TV interfaces use both in combination).
>> not sure
>>> Further down the line, there is Kinect-type camera input coming from  
>>> Samsung.
>>>
>> What would be needed to be standardized here? I expect that for general  
>> purpose application these "devices" will just emulate traditional  
>> remote.
>> I mean, even if such device recognize a "gestures" to do  
>> play/pause/stop such gestures will probably be mapped on "equivalent"  
>> RC keys.
>>
>> Of course more complex use cases (gaming) may require something more,  
>> but this is outside the scope of this profile I believe; could be an  
>> interesting topic for the web events WG.
>>
>> /g
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software

Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 13:27:59 UTC