RE: exploration of non-web intent providers

I agree Bryan!

Claes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L [mailto:bs3131@att.com]
> Sent: den 25 april 2012 06:54
> To: Nilsson, Claes1; Jean-Claude Dufourd
> Cc: Dave Raggett; public-web-intents@w3.org
> Subject: RE: exploration of non-web intent providers
> 
> That's fine, validating the use for legacy devices was the idea. I
> believe that's an important use case to further develop.
> 
> New devices with built-in Web Intents support could have their own
> access control admin I agree. Still for them, it will be important that
> access control is easy for device owners to manage.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bryan Sullivan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nilsson, Claes1 [mailto:Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 2:22 AM
> To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; Jean-Claude Dufourd
> Cc: Dave Raggett; public-web-intents@w3.org
> Subject: RE: exploration of non-web intent providers
> 
> Bryan, I think that a Home Gateway could have a role for the use case
> when we want to support existing UPnP devices. As you say such a
> gateway could provide a Web Intents Service page that provides
> discovery and access control to the home's UPnP devices.
> 
> However, for Web Intents enabled UPnP devices I do not think that a
> Home Gateway should be necessary. It seems more in-line with the Web
> Intents philosophy to solve access control as part of each Service's
> implementation.
> 
> Claes
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L [mailto:bs3131@att.com]
> > Sent: den 23 april 2012 19:15
> > To: Nilsson, Claes1; Jean-Claude Dufourd
> > Cc: Dave Raggett; public-web-intents@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: exploration of non-web intent providers
> >
> > Claes,
> >
> > Where does it fall in these use cases if I have a Home Gateway that
> > acts as a discovery service for UPnP devices, and advertises them via
> a
> > home media service page using Web Intents to browser users in the
> home
> > environment? Such a gateway could also address the issues I have
> raised
> > with access control to UPnP devices (I want to ensure that visitors
> to
> > the home have access to certain content and types of UPnP services,
> and
> > perhaps not other content or services... thus I need to build in some
> > access control features).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bryan Sullivan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nilsson, Claes1 [mailto:Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:11 AM
> > To: Jean-Claude Dufourd
> > Cc: Dave Raggett; public-web-intents@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: exploration of non-web intent providers
> >
> > Hi Jean-Claude,
> >
> > That is correct. This approach is forward-looking and targets local
> > network devices ("device 2") that are Web Intents enabled. In order
> to
> > fully leverage the strength of the Web Intents concept I think that
> the
> > local network devices have to be Web Intents enabled. So this is what
> > we currently are focusing on.
> >
> > Support for existing UPnP (or other local network) devices is another
> > use case. There are possible solutions for this but I think it will
> > more difficult to really use the benefits of the Web Intents concept
> > for existing UPnP devices. One option is to make the Client page
> aware
> > of UPnP and the communication protocol with the Service as I describe
> > in slide 16 - 20 in
> > http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/f/fa/W3C_Web_Intents_-
> > _Local_Service_Discovery.pdf. This is possible but we loses the basic
> > idea with Web Intents, i.e. allowing a Client web application
> > requesting an Action be performed by a user selected Service and not
> > know in advance which Service the user selects and the specific
> > discovery/communication mechanism of different Services capable of
> > fulfilling the requested Action.
> >
> > So when we talk about Web Intents for local network Services we must
> be
> > clear on which use case we assume.
> >
> > Best regards
> >   Claes
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jean-Claude Dufourd [mailto:jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-
> > > paristech.fr]
> > > Sent: den 23 april 2012 16:40
> > > To: Nilsson, Claes1
> > > Cc: Dave Raggett; public-web-intents@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: exploration of non-web intent providers
> > >
> > > On 23/4/12 14:00 , Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
> > > > We are prototyping Web Intents for Services in UPnP devices, i.e.
> > > > "device 2" in the context of this discussion, and have chosen to
> > > > expose the Service as web page that could be visible or "hidden".
> > > > Device 2 contains:
> > > > - A web server
> > > > - Service page
> > > > - UPnP description document containing the registration markup
> > > > according to
> > > > http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/f/fa/W3C_Web_Intents_-
> > > _Local_Service_Discovery.pdf
> > > JCD: This does not work for me as I want to test the use of web
> > intents
> > > together with unmodified UPnP services.
> > > Your services, Claes, are using a UPnP "private" extension.
> > > I do not see manufacturers of existing UPnP devices being happy
> with
> > > the
> > > requirement to implement this extension before their device can be
> > used
> > > together with Web Intents...
> > > Best regards
> > > JC
> > >
> > > --
> > > JC Dufourd
> > > Directeur d'Etudes/Professor
> > > Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
> > > Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing
> > > Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France
> > > Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144
> >

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 08:07:53 UTC