Re: New Proposal: Incorporating Resume, Event-based Discovery, MessagePort

Did the wiki got shared? Can you send a pointer to the proposal in wiki format?

Miguel

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Min, Hongbo <hongbo.min@intel.com> wrote:
> Anssi, it is okay for me to use group's wiki to put the constructor-based API proposal down. I will share it to group once it is done. Thanks.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kostiainen, Anssi
>> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 4:41 PM
>> To: Min, Hongbo; Rottsches, Dominik; public-webscreens@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: New Proposal: Incorporating Resume, Event-based Discovery,
>> MessagePort
>>
>> 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 Thursday, 30 January 2014 16:40:46 UTC