On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:
> 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
>
Francois,
The updated pull request LGTM. Thank you for making the edits.
m.