Re: To discuss the title, I opend my draft

>we should make the object of this document to contents. 
Oops this is one of the plans. Besides, there will be ideas.

Satoru

> Hi Futomi san,
> 
> >From this discussion, now I supposed that the thing which you were aimed for in this document was
 
> feature which I interpretd. And I also supposed that it was a subset of HTML5 in wide senses.
> 
> On the other hand, the fullset here (as I interpretd) is a set of greatest common features that is
 
> supported with all the well known web browsers. Of course it has many ambiguity. Such as, what is 
> common browser? Whether it includes SmartPhones or only PCs? etc.  But it will become the common 
> recognition roughly. And it will be the almost same as HTML5 in wide sense. At least it will be a 
> big feature set than it is mentioned in this document.
> 
> On the other hand, in this document and recent discussion about it, providing a profile of the 
> subset against aforementioned fullset is a main topic.
> 
> I think that it may become the standard that we can consider to be a player in conformity with 
> profile for web based signage although this is subset. In this point, I concern about 
fragmentation 
> the Web. This is because, in spite of contents to work on well known Web browsers, there are cases
 
> that this contents does not work in the players in accordance with only this subset.
> 
> If this document does not intend to promote the player of such a HTML5 subset player, we should 
make
>  the object of this document to contents. 
> 
> In the item of "may" in standards for players, a player does not need to implement the 
> specifications. On the other hand, it is almost necessary for a player to implement the 
> specifications in the item of "may" in a standard for contents. In this way, standards for 
contents 
> is harder for players (UAs).
> 
> # Of course I think that there is the choice to prescribe profile unlike HTML5 of the wide sense  
> (includes subset of HTML5) after having considered an effect in the busines.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Satoru 
> 
> > Hi Satoru,
> > 
> > I know your anxiety.
> > But I think you are a little bit too worried regarding the sub title.
> > 
> > Let me explain the meanings of the main title and the sub title at first.
> > 
> > * The main title
> > This is a collective term representing the set of docs we are planning to make.
> > 
> > * The sub title
> > This is a title representing each doc, such as "Core", "Media", etc.
> > 
> > As you know, the set of the docs is not a subset of a specific specification something,
> > such as SVG Tiny, Compact HTML.
> > It's just requirements for web-based signage.
> > It is not intended to introduce fragmentation to the WEB.
> > I agree that the term "Profile" is not appropriate for the main title,
> > because the set of docs is not a subset of something.
> > On the other hand, the each doc is a subset of the requirements (the set of the docs).
> > 
> > However, the term "profile" does not mean "subset" literally.
> > It means just a description of characteristics of something.
> > http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/profile
> > Generally, it doesn't imply "fragmentation" nor "subset".
> > 
> > I think the term "profile" is not inappropriate for the sub title,
> > and no one misunderstands the meanings reading "profile" in the sub title.
> > 
> > How about renaming the sub title *if by any chance* some people misunderstand?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Futomi
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 24 May 2013 19:06:14 +0900
> > Satoru Takagi <sa-takagi@kddi.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Futomi san,
> > > 
> > > I am circumspect about defining "Profiles" regardless of "Core".
> > > It may affect what we want to promote web based signage relying on. The core of the profile 
will
>  
> > > depend on HTML5 in wide sense if we want to rely on HTML5 in wide sense.　But HTML5 in wide 
> sense 
> > > does not seem to be prescribed closely. However, the outline is seen in various places.　For 
> example,
> > >  it is suggested on the page of HTML5 Logo of the W3C. *1　Therefore, it will become the 
> important 
> > > requirements that profile of web based signage is based on such things.
> > > 
> > > On the other hand, we should prescribe original Profile if we do not want to rely on HTML5 in 
> wide 
> > > sense. In addition, I do not like that TV and Mobile and Signage have individual Profile very 
> much. 
> > > Because they may promote fragmentation of the WWW.
> > > 
> > > I wish one general-purpose not specific use cases oriented Profile called HTML5 in wide sense 
is
>  
> > > established first.
> > > 
> > > *1: http://www.w3.org/html/logo/ 
> > > In this page's class section, the followings are enumerated.
> > > HTML5, RDFa, microdata, microformats, App Cache, Local Storage, Indexed DB, File API, 
> Geolocation 
> > > API, audio/video input, contacts & events, tilt orientation, Web Sockets, Server-Sent Events, 
> Audio,
> > >  video, SVG, Canvas, WebGL, CSS3 3D, Web Workers, XMLHttpRequest 2, CSS3, WOFF
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > 
> > > Satoru
> > > 
> > > > Hi Satoru,
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for your comment.
> > > > Responses inline below.
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:07:51 +0900
> > > > Satoru Takagi <sa-takagi@kddi.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Hi Futomi san,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thank you for publication of your hard work.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I read the document. And I understood that the positioning of this document is  the 
> followings 
> > > for 
> > > > > contents for signage player.
> > > > > * Definition of a term and the concept (Or it is the architecture and model.)
> > > > > * Detailed requirements
> > > > 
> > > > Definitely yes.
> > > > As your understanding, the document defines just detailed requirements.
> > > > 
> > > > > I think that this is an important document for this BG.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Now, I consider "Profile" at W3C to be the subsets or collections of individual features 
and
>  
> > > > > functions in existing standards. Therefore I thought this document to be different from 
> profile.
> > > > 
> > > > Exactly.
> > > > It seems to be better to change "Profile" to the other term.
> > > > 
> > > > > How about the following titles?
> > > > > "Architecture and Requirements for Web-based Signage Player"
> > > > 
> > > > Sounds nice.
> > > > Thanks for your idea.
> > > > 
> > > > BTW, how do you think "profile" in "Core profile"?
> > > > The term "profile" in "Core profile" means a subset of the documents we are addressing.
> > > > Is it confusing?
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Futomi
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Newphoria Corporation
> > > > Chief Technology Officer
> > > > Futomi Hatano
> > > > --
> > > > futomi.hatano@newphoria.co.jp
> > > > http://www.newphoria.co.jp/
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 株式会社ニューフォリア
> > 取締役 最高技術責任者
> > 羽田野 太巳 （はたの ふとみ）
> > futomi.hatano@newphoria.co.jp
> > http://www.newphoria.co.jp/
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 27 May 2013 01:50:48 UTC