- From: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:08:55 -0800
- To: WebIntents <public-web-intents@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:53 PM, <Cathy.Chan@nokia.com> wrote: > [...] > Actually, that makes it a rather different use case than what I believe the > UPnP-minded folks have in mind. We should consider the UPnP devices as legacy > devices with no web capabilities whatsoever. (They use HTTP etc. but in a > predefined manner.) I would imagine the UA, or an extension to the UA, to act > as a bridge between the UPnP protocols and the web protocols, but I doubt if > the UA/extension would go so far as serving up a full-blown web based service > including the progress/animation/status/ads/whatever you pictured in 5b. I wrote up an approach to UPnP device interaction here [1]. It takes the approach that while it may be the province of the User Agent to speak UPnP, Web Intents should not attempt to be a bridge protocol between UPnP and web content. There are quite a few use cases that can be solved in this way, but there are some that are much trickier, if not impossible. Whether that means Web Intents is a poor match for what web content might want to do with UPnP devices I'm not sure. I don't have a good handle on the relative qualities of the use cases. > So, basically we have two different schools of thoughts here. One is that the > Site only needs to know about the high-level actions such as share and print, > and things like UPnP is just the low-level way of accomplishing that > [typically one-off] task, and that the Site doesn't care whether it's UPnP or > AppleTalk or whatever - just print the page. The other is that the Site is > fully aware of and even designed for using UPnP to engage in a longer-term > relationship with a UPnP device. Imagine a Site that lets you control your > UPnP Blu-ray player. It needs feedback from the player (e.g. through events) > to be able to show you the current playback position or enable/disable the > play/pause button based on the current playback status. This is a great phrasing of the crux. Thanks! I currently come down wanting UPnP to remain the province of the User Agent, but that's partly because I don't have a good grasp on what the eventing properties are that would need to be implemented, and what functionality they'd enable. One thing I'm missing is a good delta understanding between the Web Intents proposal as we currently have it written up (at [2]) and a version of Web Intents that fully bridged UPnP. What would that look like? Or will it fit into the existing API somehow? If so, how? [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2011Dec/0043.html [2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/web-intents/raw-file/tip/spec/Overview.html
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 01:09:24 UTC