- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:41:08 +0000
- To: "Min, Hongbo" <hongbo.min@intel.com>, "Rottsches, Dominik" <dominik.rottsches@intel.com>, "public-webscreens@w3.org" <public-webscreens@w3.org>
Hi Dominik, Hongbo, All, On 24 Jan 2014, at 08:57, Min, Hongbo <hongbo.min@intel.com> wrote: > Inspired by the API proposal using MessagePort instead of WindowProxy, here comes up with an alternative API proposal from another perspective for how to evolve Presentation API to meet the new requirements, e.g. multiple display support, session resuming. In this proposal, we follow the API paradigm of EventSource[1], WebSocket[2] and XWLHttpRequest[3] API definitions to abstract each presentation session into a Presentation object, and allow consumer to construct arbitrary number of Presentation objects by manual, so-called 'Constructor-based' approach. > > Any feedback and criticism are highly appreciated, including your concerns in constructor-based approach, your preferred API definitions and the possibility to incorporate with the function based approach. Dominik, Hongbo - thank you for investigating various options how to improve the API to address the new requirements. Much appreciated. It may make it easier for the group participants to provide feedback and collaborate if you’d use the group’s wiki to document the proposals. For example, the code and IDL examples are probably more readable that way. The structure of the page could be, for example: * Use cases * Requirements * Examples * IDL * Open issues / notes Some of these can refer to the current spec, for example the use cases remain but we may want to add a new one for the flinging use case. Also, group participants may have additional use cases in mind too to be considered. Once we land on consensus in the group re the shape of the API after iterating the design in the wiki, perhaps merging the good parts of the proposals, integrating proposals and changes suggested by group participants, we can then start to think about landing the changes to the spec proper. But before we do that, I’d like to make sure we consider everyone’s feedback carefully, and I think the wiki might be the right tool for the task for the first iteration. Dominik, Hongbo - could you work together to create such a wiki page and share it with the group? Thanks, -Anssi
Received on Friday, 24 January 2014 08:46:22 UTC