- From: Masayuki IHARA <ihara.masayuki@lab.ntt.co.jp>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:40:24 +0900
- To: Sangwhan Moon <sangwhan@iki.fi>, Futomi Hatano <futomi.hatano@newphoria.co.jp>
- CC: WOOK HYUN <whyun@etri.re.kr>, "<public-websignage@w3.org>" <public-websignage@w3.org>
Thank you for the discussion. I am sorry for this late reply. Our technology is based on WebSocket-based communication among users' devices and digital signage terminals, and each device works by a javascript program downloaded from a web server in LAN side of Wi-Fi access point. It is supposed that the digital signage devices would be mananged inside the LAN in emergency situation. I will send a figure to show how to work and answers for your questions probably tomorrow. (I have to fly to Geneva from now.) Regards, Masayuki >>> While we aren't making a normative document here (although I seriously wish >>> we could) making the transport method completely open ended just makes life >>> complicated for implementors. >> >> >> >> What do you mean "a normative document"? >> Legally, BGs can make only group notes. Do you mean this? >> If we find lack of APIs, we can make API drafts unofficially. >> Then we can propose them to WGs. > > I was noting that since we are only working on a group note, being very open ended > and ambiguous is probably acceptable but not ideal. Having everything too open ended > will end up in a group note that neither a implementor or a content developer can actually > refer to, as it's just a collection of ideas and use cases with no specifics. > > I honestly don't think that there is much of a point in publishing a document that can't > be used as a reference from either side - which is what I was trying to point out. > > Sangwhan > >
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 01:46:08 UTC