- From: Norifumi Kikkawa <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:51:45 +0900
- To: "Cathy.Chan@nokia.com" <Cathy.Chan@nokia.com>
- Cc: "public-web-intents@w3.org" <public-web-intents@w3.org>
Hello Cathy and all, I agree with Cathy, just with adding a comment. (The link is still dead...) As you mentioned, even a device supports more than one Intent actions, it does not have to enumerate more than one WebIntents serviceTypes. The text in the A.4 figure should be removed. I think this is enough as the document and it doesn't have to prohibit multiple WebIntents serviceTypes explicitly because even if a device happens to have multiple WebIntents serviceTypes, it doesn't make a client implementation more complex. I assume a client in the web intents scenario may not see the content of UPnP description document. Best Regards, Kikkawa --------------------------------------------- Norifumi Kikkawa <Norifumi.Kikkawa@jp.sony.com> Section 1 Network Technology Dept. Information Technology Development Division System & Software Technology Platfotm Sony Corporation (TEL) +81 50 3750 3953 ----------------------------------------------- On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 05:10:51 +0900 "Cathy.Chan@nokia.com" <Cathy.Chan@nokia.com> wrote: > Here are my comments on the addendum that Claes uploaded last week. (The > link is dead as of today by the way.) > > 4.1.1 The actionList tags should be removed. The UDA requires that the > actionList must not be listed in the service description when there are no > actions. > 4.1.1 The text description says X_State is ui4 but it's in boolean in the > example. > 4.1.2 [[To support more than one Web Intents action the action strings must > be separated with one or more commas.]] > - This can be misinterpreted as multiple commas between two action strings. > s/one or more// > 4.1.3 [[The UPnP enabled device must store Web Intents documents for the Web > Intents Services the UPnP enabled device supports.]] > - "store" alone does not make it available to the UA. Change "store" to > "host" or "expose" or something else? > - Similarly with 4.1.4. > 4.2 Step 2. [[If the action.webintents.org header is present and does not > match the action attributes of the Services registered in the retrieved Web > Intents document the UPnP enabled User Agent silently disregards the > discovered Service.]] > - It's unclear which Service is referred to in "disregards the discovered > Service". I think this refers to a Web Intents service listed inside the Web > Intents document, especially in cases where the Web Intents document > includes multiple services, and not all of them match the > action.webintents.org header. This, however, is a different use of > "disregards the discovered Service" as in the previous sentence, where > Service refers to the entire M-SEARCH response/UPnP service. > - Ideally, the UA may choose to register all services (for future use) but > only present the matching one(s) in the picker. (see the next point.) > 4.2 If a Web Intents document includes registration markup for multiple > services, does the UA register all the services or only the matching > service(s)? Step 4 implies the latter, but step 3 may be interpreted to > imply the former. > 4.2.1 s/continously listen/continuously listen to/ > 4.2.2 [[...it is *assumed* that UPnP enabled User Agents that comply to this > specification support Web Intents according to [WEBINTENTS]...]] conflicts > with the Conformance section where [[A UPnP enabled User Agent *must* > support Web Intents [WEBINTENTS].]] > 4.2.2 Why is UDA 1.1 referenced here while the rest of the document refers > to UDA 1.0? > 4.2.3 is non-normative but starts with a MUST statement. > A.4 The figure has a note [[To support more than one Web Intents Service, > add more service elements with different "serviceId" for the Web Intents > Services.]] In UPnP, multiple instances of a service is used when those > instances would have different state variable values, respond to actions > differently, etc. Since in this spec we already say that the state variable > is dummy and there are no actions, there's no real reason to use multiple > [UPnP] services. (Note that multiple Web Intents services can be registered > with a single Web Intents document and therefore do not necessitate the use > of multiple UPnP services.) I would suggest prohibiting the use of multiple > UPnP WebIntents services altogether, which may make implementations simpler. > This can be done at the beginning sentence of 4.1.1 [[The UPnP enabled > device must support the UPnP service which serviceType is > urn:schemas-webintents-org:service:WebIntents:1 ...]] - s/the UPnP > service/one UPnP service/ > > This may well be a matter of personal preference. Instead of "UPnP-enabled > device", I would suggest using either "Web Intents enabled UPnP device" to > highlight the Web Intents capability of such devices, or simply UPnP device > to be consistent with common usage. My preference is the former, as it would > also help distinguish these more capable devices from "legacy" UPnP devices > if/when we write new specifications to support those. > > - Cathy. >
Received on Friday, 6 July 2012 07:49:05 UTC