Re: [Cloud Browser] minutes - 11 January 2017

Hi Mark,

Thank you for your comments. I am not sure if we need to add more information on the data structures because the comparison is more subtle. For example Opera mini doesn’t use the DOM, client-side. In the contrary, i don’t think the cloud browser doesn’t have a DOM on the server-side necessarily. I will try to explain this more in-depth in the next iteration. In short the main difference is the notion of context. You could say that the user agent exists on the client-side with the split browser where the user agent exist on the server with a cloud browser. This is not only limited to identify resources but also having the knowledge of user settings such-as the user language. This is an important difference. Where a split browser client is part of the web architecture you may argue that a cloud browser client is not. As consequence, this brings unique opportunities but also difficulties as Accessibility, QoE, etc. I will try to address those as-well in the comparison.

I will encourage everybody to participate in shaping the documents as i fully agree that this could be a very helpful resource to understand the cloud browser. Tomorrow [1] there will be another Cloud Browser call where we probably discuss this topic.

Thanks,

Colin

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-web-and-tv/2017Jan/0000.html






On 20 Jan 2017, at 17:21, Vickers, Mark <Mark_Vickers@comcast.com<mailto:Mark_Vickers@comcast.com>> wrote:

Hi Colin,

This document could be really important for people understand how cloud browsers fit in the web architecture. Thanks for starting this. It's quite helpful already.

I think that in addition to request/response sequences, you may want to add more discussion of data structures to the diagrams and discussions. For example, isn't it a key difference that the DOM is in the cloud in the cloud browser, whereas the DOM is in the client device in all the other designs?

FYI, there's also a few typos. In particular, I think a key noun is missing in the Cloud Browser paragraph before the "[1]" reference.:
"It could provide an [1] but has no relation with a resource..."

Thanks,
mav


On Jan 20, 2017, at 9:10 AM, Meerveld, Colin <C.Meerveld@activevideo.com<mailto:C.Meerveld@activevideo.com>> wrote:

As discussed during the meeting i added an article [1] which explains the differences between a cloud browser and a so-called split browser. I am not sure if we need to put it in the group note as-well.

Any comments and suggestion will be appreciated.

Thanks,

Colin

[1] https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Main_Page/Cloud_Browser_TF/cloud_browser_vs_split_browser


On 11 Jan 2017, at 16:54, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org<mailto:ashimura@w3.org>> wrote:

available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2017/01/11-webtv-minutes.html


also as text below.

Thanks,

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/


                               - DRAFT -

                      Web&TV IG - Cloud Browser TF

11 Jan 2017

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2017/01/11-webtv-irc


Attendees

   Present
          Alexandra, Colin, Kaz

   Regrets
   Chair
          Alexandra

   Scribe
          kaz

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Welcome2017
         2. [5]Short update of 2016
         3. [6]Current task - Architecture Group Note
     * [7]Summary of Action Items
     * [8]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

Welcome2017

   alexandra: happy to find this new slot
   ... would like to ask people actively participated in the TF if
   they can participate this year as well
   ... the Cloud Browser TF has been extended until 30 April 2017
   ... and possibly can be extended until TPAC after the IG's
   extension

Short update of 2016

   alexandra: Colin has generated draft spec
   ... want to propose work on the draft and use cases in parallel
   ... talk about the draft first and then use cases next
   ... which work to be published as a group note?
   ... would propose Colin talk about the draft note

Current task - Architecture Group Note

   colin: draft on the wiki page
   ... highlights the basic concept of Cloud Browsers

   ->
   [9]https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Main_Page/Cloud_Browser_T

   F/groupnote draft for the group note

      [9] https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Main_Page/Cloud_Browser_TF/groupnote

   alexandra: updated the diagram
   ... question on how to call the client
   ... Cloud Browser's client
   ... just put "EasyClient" as the term now
   ... if OK by you, would like to go with that

   kaz: maybe we should have a terminology section at the top of
   the document

   alexandra: tx
   ... the second one is description of components

   <alexandra> 1. easyclient

   <alexandra> 2. component description

   <alexandra> 3. split browser?

   <alexandra> 4. approach description

   alexandra: component description is kind of terminology section
   ... and then provide a couple of sentences for split browser

   colin: it is actually far from "easy" :)
   ... the name should imply what it does
   ... "client" has some specific meaning and Cloud Browser's
   client is a bit different from usual clients

   alexandra: can we stuck with "Cloud Browser Client"?

   kaz: we can start with that friendly term :)

   alexandra: and we can use "Cloud Browser Client" in our
   description

   colin: yes

   alexandra: ok
   ... next "component description"

   colin: is that a terminology section?

   alexandra: depends on how we start the document

   -> [10]https://www.w3.org/TR/hnreq/ home network requirements
   note

     [10] https://www.w3.org/TR/hnreq/


   kaz: we can use that note as a template

   alexandra: every term is defined at the beginning

   kaz: actually, we can start with actual requirements and pick
   up difficult terms and add them to the terminology section
   later

   colin: brief description of terms

   alexandra: we don't really have requirements at the moment

   kaz: we can simply describe our architecture instead

   <alexandra> ... intro, terminology, architecture section (with
   subsection 1-7 in current version)

   kaz: that could be an initial structure

   alexandra: ok
   ... can start the terminology section
   ... should we include some text about what we do and what we
   don't do

   colin: in the client section, I tried to explain the difference
   ... like split browser
   ... could help people understand the difference

   alexandra: would propose we have a separate section to explain
   the difference from usual browser

   colin: will do that

   kaz: if it's easier for you to directly use HTML, you can start
   to use GitHub

   colin: no problem with wiki or GitHub

   alexandra: will restructure the draft based on the discussion
   ... and start terminology section
   ... let's start to review in 2 weeks
   ... and then put the draft on the group's review

   colin: sounds like a good plan
   ... good to get more people

   kaz: quick question
   ... will on work on the use cases in parallel?

   alexandra: no, we'll concentrate on the architecture group note
   ... and then will work on the use cases

   kaz: ok, tx for your clarification

   [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [11]scribe.perl version
    1.148 ([12]CVS log)
    $Date: 2017/01/11 15:52:35 $

     [11] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

     [12] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/



--
Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Auto, WoT, TV, MMI and Geo
Tel: +81 3 3516 2504