Re: Updated Presentation API WebIDL - call for review

Doesn't PeerConnection create a relatively high bar for devices to support? What other implementation features need to be supported for PeerConnection? Encryption? 

What about WebSockets? or even simple XHR? Many of the currently shipping devices already have a protocol, but the do vary quite a bit. 

I worry that by imposing the connection protocol, we basically remove every currently shipping hardware device from being compatible. Do we care about that? 

Finkle 

----- Original Message -----

> Hi Anton and Wesley,

> I would prefer to have some spec for interoperability among browsers. Do we
> have any issue with PeerConnection? I assume it works without a server
> within the same local network.

> Best Regards,

> Dong-Young Lee

> From: Anton Vayvod [mailto:avayvod@google.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 2:48 AM
> To: Wesley Johnston
> Cc: Anssi Kostiainen; public-webscreens@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Updated Presentation API WebIDL - call for review

> Hi Wesley,

> the idea is to leave this details out of the spec for the browser to
> implement. This may leave different browsers supporting different protocols
> and second UAs but should be less of a problem for the web developers since
> the code on the sender is the same.

> Thanks,

> Anton.

> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Wesley Johnston < wjohnston@mozilla.com >
> wrote:

> Just glancing at this briefly, there's still nothing in the spec to describe
> how we would actually facilitate communication between two different UA's.

> i.e. UA1 calls postMessage() -> Magic happens -> UA2 receives onMessage

> We'd really like to avoid that sort of magic, and there are already specs (as
> I mentioned earlier, PeerConnection?) that do handle it. In the same way, if
> we're tackling two UA systems here, I think we also need to define how
> discovery and the initial setup of a connection between two UA's is handled.
> I'd like to avoid a situation where that communication has to be defined
> differently for each different type of device.

> I like the idea of using this as a way to make Network Discovery work, but I
> think we'd be hesitant about implementing anything until there were
> solutions to those problems.

> - Wes

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anssi Kostiainen" < anssi.kostiainen@intel.com >
> To: public-webscreens@w3.org
> Sent: Monday, March 3, 2014 7:46:15 AM
> Subject: Updated Presentation API WebIDL - call for review

> Hi All,

> As a group, we’ve now mulled over the design of the revised Presentation API
> by looking at the use cases, requirements, and concrete usage examples.

> As the concrete next step, we’ve drafted the WebIDL for the updated
> Presentation API, ready for your review at:

> https://www.w3.org/community/webscreens/wiki/API_Discussion#WebIDL

> All - please review the WebIDL and chime in on the list if you have any
> questions or concerns, big or small. Also, if you’re happy with the
> direction, positive signals are also encouraged, even if just +1s. As usual,
> silence is considered consent.

> Before we start land changes to the spec itself, we want to ensure we’re
> aligned, so your feedback at this stage is much appreciated.

> Thanks,

> -Anssi