- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 17:25:37 +0200
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "mark a. foltz" <mfoltz@google.com>
- CC: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, Mark Scott <markdavidscott@google.com>, "Rottsches, Dominik" <dominik.rottsches@intel.com>, "public-webscreens@w3.org" <public-webscreens@w3.org>, "Bassbouss, Louay" <louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de>, Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>, Daniel Davis <ddavis@w3.org>
On 2014-06-04 16:53, Mark Watson wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:10 PM, mark a. foltz <mfoltz@google.com > <mailto:mfoltz@google.com>> wrote: > > Thanks. Two items of feedback around clarification. > > Original text #1: > > + To advance to Proposed Recommendation, interoperability > between the > > + independent implementations (that is, same content > rendered and same > + experience regardless of the user agent and secondary display > + considered) should be demonstrated. > > This was a little ambiguous at first reading. Is the "user agent" > the one hosting the web application or the one rendering, or both? > > Also, the means of evaluating the "same experience" needs to > consider the fact that wireless displays (single-UA) and flinging > (two-UA) cases will always have qualitatively different experiences > from the user point of view. > > Perhaps: > > + To advance to Proposed Recommendation, interoperability > between the > + independent implementations should be demonstrated. > Interoperable user agents hosting > + the same Presentation API web application should be able > to render the same > + content with the same functionality on multiple types of > secondary displays. > > > I have one concern with this text which that the above is only possible > if both the UAs support the specific type of secondary display and if > the display supports the content in question. > > For example, if one UA can render YouTube content using a YouTube app > discovered over DIAL but another cannot connect to that display does not > mean that the Presentation API is not interoperable (that's a DIAL > interoperability problem). > > Equally, If two UAs can render some piece of UHD content through a HDMI > connection but it doesn't work over a MirraCast link with only HDCP1.x > this again is not a failure of the Presentation API. I agree that these cases would not qualify as interoperability problems with the Presentation API. That's definitely not what I wanted that sentence to convey. I guess that the problem comes from the final part of the sentence. How about: [[ Interoperable user agents hosting the same Presentation API web application should be able to render the same content with the same functionality on *supported secondary displays that are compatible with the content to render*. ]] ... or the more convoluted but perhaps clearer: [[ Given secondary displays that are compatible with the content to render, interoperable user agents hosting the same application Presentation API web application should be able to render the same content with the same functionality on the subset of secondary displays that they support. ]] Any better suggestion? Francois.
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 15:27:05 UTC