- From: Bassbouss, Louay <louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 13:05:09 +0000
- To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, "mark a. foltz" <mfoltz@google.com>
- CC: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>, "public-webscreens@w3.org" <public-webscreens@w3.org>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, Mark Scott <markdavidscott@google.com>, "Rottsches, Dominik" <dominik.rottsches@intel.com>, Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com>, "Philipp Hoschka" <ph@w3.org>, Daniel Davis <ddavis@w3.org>
Hi Anssi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kostiainen, Anssi [mailto:anssi.kostiainen@intel.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 30. Mai 2014 14:52
> To: Bassbouss, Louay; mark a. foltz
> Cc: Francois Daoust; public-webscreens@w3.org; Mark Watson; Mark Scott;
> Rottsches, Dominik; Bob Lund; Philipp Hoschka; Daniel Davis
> Subject: Re: Requesting display of non HTML content (was: Draft of Second
> Screen Presentation Working Group Charter available)
>
> Hi Louay, MarkF, All,
>
> On 30 May 2014, at 12:24, Bassbouss, Louay
> <louay.bassbouss@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I like this proposal, this solves the media control issue by using
> HTMLMediaElements and opens the door for using existing APIs like
> MediaStream API, FileSystem API for accessing offline files, etc. without the
> need to touch the Presentation API spec.
>
> Louay - thanks for your support.
>
> Yes, that is exactly why I think reusing the existing building blocks makes
> sense. Personally I feel this strikes the right balance. The proposal allows us
> to reuse not only media controls, but also network state, ready state,
> playback state of media as well as other goodies already defined by the
> HTMLMediaElement.
>
> I also feel this is the abstraction level web developers are familiar with. We
> must strive to make the API ergonomics as good as possible.
>
> >> Obviously, canvas could be piped to a secondary screen similarly, but
> >> I stop here.
> > Actually you can adapt it to any DOMElement ;). This is what I already
> proposed sometime at the very beginning of the CG discussion.
>
> That is definitely an interesting proposal, but I suggest we keep the scope we
> have currently for the v1 spec ("the web content may comprise HTML
> documents, web media types such as images, audio, video, or application-
> specific media"), that is, concentrate on the HTMLMediaElements and the
> HTMLImageElement initially.
Completely agree
>
> Extending this to any HTMLElement would make an excellent experimental
> extension spec I think, that could be worked on in the Community Group
> first.
>
> MarkF - what do you mean by the "application-specific media"? Does it fit
> into this model? That concept was landed into the draft charter as part of
> your charter update [1].
>
> >> IOW, we reuse the machinery already defined in the HTML spec for
> >> media elements.
> >>
> >> All - WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Anssi
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/webscreens/charter/commit/472889d830730b34d116d7c
> 61fe94f9433217dcb
Received on Friday, 30 May 2014 13:09:47 UTC