- 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