RE: Web Intents Addendum for local Services uploaded

Hi Bryan,

If I understand you correctly I see this use case covered by the proposal specification. In this case the intents-enabled media gateway has the role of Web Intents enabled UPnP device as well as a UPnP control point for legacy UPnP devices.


>-----Original Message-----
>Sent: den 11 juli 2012 13:24
>To: Nilsson, Claes1; Jean-Claude Dufourd
>Subject: RE: Web Intents Addendum for local Services uploaded
>Would the deployment case of an intents-enabled media gateway (acting as
>a bridge for discovery and access to content on non-intents-capable
>devices in the local network) be covered by the initial scope you have
>addressed? i.e. saying nothing about how such a device might act as a
>bridge, is the case covered in which a UPnP-enabled device, via Web
>Intents, references or somehow delivers content that resides on some
>other device so that the client can access it?
>Bryan Sullivan
>From: Nilsson, Claes1 []
>Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 2:27 AM
>To: Jean-Claude Dufourd
>Subject: RE: Web Intents Addendum for local Services uploaded
>Hi Jean-Claude,
>I agree that connection of Web Intents with unmodified, non Web Intents
>enabled devices, is also interesting. There are advantages and
>disadvantages with both approaches. However, as stated before, we have
>started to work on a specification with the clear assumption "Web
>Intents enabled local devices". The statement "A Web Intents enabled
>UPnP device MUST ..." is therefore correct as it says what is required
>from a Web Intents enabled UPnP devices. The statement does not say
>anything about or exclude Web Intents for non Web Intents enabled UPnP
>I hope to get bandwith after the summer to look at Web Intents for
>services on non Web Intents enabled local devices. This includes not
>only UPnP and mDNS devices but also Bluetooth, USB, ANT+ etc connected
>Best regards
>  Claes
>From: Jean-Claude Dufourd [mailto:jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-
>Sent: den 11 juli 2012 10:28
>To: Nilsson, Claes1
>Subject: Re: Web Intents Addendum for local Services uploaded
>Your addendum describes a connection of web intents to modified UPnP
>devices and services.
>I claim that it is perfectly possible, and preferrable, to connect web
>intents with unmodified UPnP devices and services.
>I remember, Claes, when you said that the two are not incompatible.
>I hope you are right, but I am not so sure.
>I actually object to the "A Web Intents enabled UPnP device MUST ..."
>sentences, because they carry the implication that only those UPnP
>devices can work with web intents, that only modified UPnP devices can
>and unmodified UPnP devices will not.
>And that is not true, according to me.
>I am not sure exactly what change would make the addendum acceptable to
>me, but that seems to be the most sensitive issue.
>Best regards
>On 27juin 23:32, Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
>I have uploaded the draft Web Intents Addendum specification on Local
>In addition there is a video of a demo of the use case "Play video on
>remote device using Web Intents",
>Feedback is welcome!
>Best regards
>  Claes
>Claes Nilsson M.Sc.E.E
>Master Engineer, Research
>Technology Research - Advanced Application Lab
>Sony Mobile Communications
> Phone:  +46 10 80 15178
>Mobile: +46 705 56 68 78
>Switchboard: +46 10 80 00000
>Visiting Address; Nya Vattentornet
>SE-221 88 LUND,
>The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally
>privileged. It is intended solely for the named recipient(s) and access
>to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. The views are those of
>the sender and not necessarily the views of Sony Ericsson and Sony
>Ericsson accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever or howsoever
>arising in connection with this e-mail.Any attachment(s) to this message
>has been checked for viruses, but please rely on your own virus checker
>and procedures. If you contact us by e-mail, we will store your name and
>address to facilitate communications. If you are not the intended
>recipient, please inform the sender by replying this transmission and
>delete the e-mail and any copies of it without disclosing it.

Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 13:35:03 UTC