- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 08:17:50 +0000
- To: "Bassbouss, Louay" <louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
- CC: "mark a. foltz" <mfoltz@google.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "public-webscreens@w3.org" <public-webscreens@w3.org>, Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>, Daniel Davis <ddavis@w3.org>
Hi Louay, On 16 May 2014, at 10:26, Bassbouss, Louay <louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > I also think extending the scope of the API to support displaying any web content will make it more powerful. From API perspective, the function for request show content on second display (requestSession(url)) is easy to adapt to any content type (url could point to a html page but also to any other web content). My concern is on the control part. In the CG API discussion, the communication part is a simple webmessaging-like channel. This is applicable when application logic is running on both end-points (control and display) but not for content. For content we need to specify control functions for each content type (e.g. for video sess = requestSession(‘example.com/video.mp4’); sess.play(); sess.pause(); etc.). > I want just to clarify if this is in scope of the WG and if not, do you imagine there is another abstraction level that works for all kind of content? I feel media-specific control functions are out of scope for the API, and I’d expect such functionality will be provided by JavaScript libraries build atop the API. Thanks, -Anssi
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 08:18:22 UTC