RE: Status of my Actions from Shenzhen meeting (relating to Web Intents for local network service discovery)

As I have stated before I think that we should work with two main use cases:

1. Web Intents as a discovery mechanism for existing local network services
2. Web Intents as a discovery mechanism for "Web Intents"-enabled local network services

We are currently focusing more on 2 for UPnP than 1 as there are several advantages with 2 but that does of course not exclude 1 and I am happy that work is ongoing for 1.

So looking forward to your proposal Clarke!

Best regards
  Claes

From: Clarke Stevens [mailto:C.Stevens@CableLabs.com]
Sent: den 25 april 2012 18:39
To: Jean-Claude Dufourd; public-web-intents@w3.org
Subject: Re: Status of my Actions from Shenzhen meeting (relating to Web Intents for local network service discovery)

I completely agree with Jean-Claude's concerns. The proposal I will send out shortly works with existing UPnP devices. It supports UPnP events, a topic we have not really covered in this discussion yet. Finally, it is not exclusive to UPnP. It will work for zeroconf and other device discovery/communication protocols.

Sorry to do a lot of talking without providing the evidence, but I'll get it out as soon as possible. I just wanted to note that we are trying to deal with some of these issues.

-Clarke

From: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr<mailto:jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>>
To: "public-web-intents@w3.org<mailto:public-web-intents@w3.org>" <public-web-intents@w3.org<mailto:public-web-intents@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Status of my Actions from Shenzhen meeting (relating to Web Intents for local network service discovery)

On 25/4/12 13:54 , Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
ACTION-510: Create new spec how WebIntents UPnP registration
Our idea is to add Intents Service markup to the UPnP Device Description xml-document. We are prototyping this idea and also considering the alternative solution to instead just have a URL to a Web Intents Service registration page in the UPnP Device Description xml-document. One motivation for that is that it would be easier to adapt to standardization changes for registration (referring to discussions on this list and WHAT WG), e.g. usage of a JS API for registration.
JCD: I am really uneasy about this push.
To reformulate, Claes' proposal is to modify UPnP discovery to ease the interworking with Web Intents.

There are many reasons why it would be preferrable to modify Web Intents to fit with UPnP rather than the opposite, including:
- UPnP is a standard from another organisation, it is so much easier to change our own standard
- UPnP is already complete (version 4?) and implemented in many devices, and Web Intents is just a draft
- counting on UPnP extensions has the potential of dramatically reducing the number of Web Intents compatible devices

During the F2F, Giuseppe remarked "we want to reuse existing devices".

I think any departure from that possible reuse of existing devices needs to be thoroughly justified.
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