- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 07:17:18 +0000
- To: Mark Scott <markdavidscott@google.com>, "public-webscreens@w3.org" <public-webscreens@w3.org>
- CC: "Rottsches, Dominik" <dominik.rottsches@intel.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "mark a. foltz" <mfoltz@google.com>, Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com>, "Bassbouss, Louay" <louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de>, Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>, "Daniel Davis" <ddavis@w3.org>
Hi MarkS, All, On 28 May 2014, at 03:27, Mark Scott <markdavidscott@google.com> wrote: > I think we should talk concretely about what's actually being asked from an API perspective. What we are defining here is a Web API, that is, by definition, an API that works with the web content in the wild, and not just with vendor X's site. It is indeed easier to develop a solution if you control all the aspects: the site, the media it embeds, the way how this media is encoded, the browser. However, that is not how the Web works. The Web is about diversity and choice. The API must work for Netflix and Google but at the same time must not discriminate the small shops or independent developers. Similarly to any other Web API on the Web platform. The way how I see this is that the HTML is the lowest common denominator. If you can come up with a technical solution to the problems discussed in this thread that do work for the Web at large I’m more than happy to discuss them in this group and see if we can reach consensus required to extend the scope of the proposed WG charter. I’m sensing we’re getting closer to that already. Dominik will provide technical feedback so that we can keep the dialogue going, address these issues, and get to work. This reply was more about broad strokes. Thanks, -Anssi
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2014 07:17:51 UTC