Re: [apis] Update HNReq note or publish new document

Not sure we need to split the document, but what we can do, once we have
identified which req goes to which WG, is to generate some "extracts" that
includes only relevant text for each WG

/g


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Vickers, Mark <
Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote:

> I agree with Giuseppe's direction below.
>
> I'd also note that while much of the Media API TF overlaps with the old
> HNTF, some topics like the downloading & recording are orthogonal to home
> networking. I suggest we split the final recommendations into at least two
> documents:
>
> 1. a large set of HN recommendations and
> 2. a smaller recommendation on downloading/recording.
>
>  For one reason, there're each likely to end up in different WGs.
>
> Thanks,
> mav
>
> On Sep 19, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm wondering if updating the HNReq document or re-discussing it it's
> > the best use of our time. I agree we have partially repeated the same
> > discussion (and I've mentioned this several times) and this is due to
> > the fact that people active in the group have changed since then
> >
> > Anyway, I think is OK to let the HNReq stay as it is (RIP if you wish
> > ;) ), an focus on quickly wrap up our list of use cases and
> > requirements, and (more important) on the gap analysis, to see which
> > requirements have already a spec that can cover them (either final or
> > WiP).
> >
> > During this activity, we should review the NSD spec (see related
> > discussion on this list) that was the direct consequence of the HNReq
> > document.
> >
> > /g
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Olivier Thereaux
> > <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Dear Media APIs TF members,
> >>
> >> Since we started our work in the Media APIs TF, I have been rather
> worried
> >> that we may be reinventing the wheel - or more accurately, that we were
> >> not most efficient in building upon the two years of work by the Home
> >> Networking TF in 2011 (and 2012?).
> >>
> >> I have started a wiki document to track the similarities and differences
> >> between the requirements we are currently working on
> >> (http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Requirements) and the
> >> requirements published at the end of 2011
> >> (http://www.w3.org/TR/hnreq/#prevent-leaking-of-information)
> >>
> >> The document is here, and obviously work in progress:
> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/HNReq_Comparison
> >>
> >>
> >> I am still in the process of analysing the similarities between our TF's
> >> current list of requirements and the ones published 2 years ago, but the
> >> similarities are striking.
> >>
> >> I would like the TF to discuss and decide the most effective way
> forward:
> >>
> >> 1. Continue with our current list of use cases and requirements, making
> >> sure we take into account the work already done by the HNTF.
> >>
> >> 2. "take over" the HNReq note. This would probably imply changing its
> name
> >> (our current scope is often wider the home network) and merging use
> cases
> >> and requirements into a single list on which we would subsequently
> iterate
> >>
> >> Many thanks,
> >> Olivier
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----------------------------
> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> >> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
> >> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless
> specifically stated.
> >> If you have received it in
> >> error, please delete it from your system.
> >> Do not use, copy or disclose the
> >> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
> >> immediately.
> >> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
> >> sent or received.
> >> Further communication will signify your consent to
> >> this.
> >> -----------------------------
> >
>
>