- From: Olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:18:13 +0000
- To: Daniel Davis <ddavis@w3.org>
- CC: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>, public-web-and-tv <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Daniel, Giuseppe, On the call today we basically agreed with this. My summary of the three letter/color codes is: √ means: requirement (will be) covered x means: requirement not covered but we think it should be ? means: we're not sure yet - more investigation/discussion needed https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvACjV6qSvmxdEctdjYwa2JOalZLOG10elE1LVRZNlE#gid=1 Olivier On 16 Oct 2013, at 14:04, Daniel Davis <ddavis@w3.org> wrote: > Thanks Giuseppe. That's what I meant with "x" but I think "?" is more > understandable. > > Daniel > > On 16/10/13 20:22, Giuseppe Pascale wrote: >> One more comment: I'm adding some "?" cells. With that I mean basically >> two things >> >> - the spec could be applicable, more investigation is needed >> - the spec could be applicable and clarification on the req. is needed >> to confirm this >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com >> <mailto:giuseppep@opera.com>> wrote: >> >> for the record: I'll not be able to attend todays call but I'm >> putting some comments and an additional column in the document. I >> would appreciate if you can look at them (if any of them is not >> clear, you can skip it, but some are easy to address) >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Giuseppe Pascale >> <giuseppep@opera.com <mailto:giuseppep@opera.com>> wrote: >> >> good work, I would encourage others to provide their input on >> that table. >> >> @Daniel >> I've added some colors to your cells to make it easier to see >> the covered/not covered/undefined >> >> @TF moderators >> is this table linked from the wiki? if not, would you mind >> adding a link to it somewhere? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Daniel Davis <ddavis@w3.org >> <mailto:ddavis@w3.org>> wrote: >> >> Thanks for this, Giuseppe. >> >> I've indicated what I think the NSD API covers in our >> spreadsheet: >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvACjV6qSvmxdEctdjYwa2JOalZLOG10elE1LVRZNlE#gid=1 >> >> ✓ = covered >> ⨯ = not covered, could be added >> (blank) = not applicable >> >> I've also added columns for what I think are relevant specs >> for the >> whole gap analysis. We can change or delete them as necessary. >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel >> >> On 05/10/13 17:20, Giuseppe Pascale wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> as discussed during last Media APIs TF call, we are now >> moving on to the >>> next (final) phase of our work for the current iteration: >> the gap analysis. >>> >>> In this phase, we need to analyse existing specs and see >> if there are >>> technologies that already satisfy the requirements we have >> listed in [1] >>> (extracted from the use cases in [2]) >>> >>> So there is an action point on each TF member to come up >> with suggestion >>> of which specs can be used to address our requirements or >> which specs >>> would need to be "extended" in order to meet our >> requirements. Please >>> send an email to this list including: >>> >>> 1. requirement >>> 2. related spec >>> 3. identified gaps (if any) >>> >>> Since we have already mentioned the NSD spec [3] few >> times, I would like >>> to ask people to start reviewing it (as also requested by >> the DAP group) >>> and provide feedback on if such spec address the >> identified requirements >>> on service/device discovery, and if not, why. (I'll >> provide my comments >>> on this in a separate mail) >>> >>> /g >>> >>> P.S. During the call we decided to try to get feedback on >> a voluntary >>> base, but if nobody volunteers we may need to fall back on >> assigning >>> each requirement to one TF member during next call ;) >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Requirements >>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases >>> [3] >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/discovery-api/Overview.html >> >> >> >> > -- Olivier Thereaux - BBC Internet Research and Future Services ----------------------------- 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. -----------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 14:19:02 UTC