Re: Interoperability and protocols in draft WG charter

On 2014-06-04 17:25, Francois Daoust wrote:
> 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:
[...]
>>     +          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?

I went with the first proposal and updated the pull request accordingly.
See "finalizing" message I just sent to the list for additional changes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webscreens/2014Jun/0013.html

Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 08:54:34 UTC