- From: WOOK HYUN <whyun@etri.re.kr>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 18:40:19 +0900
- To: Masayuki IHARA <ihara.masayuki@lab.ntt.co.jp>
- Cc: "<public-websignage@w3.org>" <public-websignage@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABMDszF-6g21jGVFtV=89=ar8CdAwH_dYvZkciUR4JujGEVAJg@mail.gmail.com>
Thank you Mr.IHARA. I think your use case assume that digital signage terminal runs a web server, and device access the web server using its web browser. right? It will be better if you can give us a generalized figure for describing your use case. I hope you enjoy the flight. See you. Regards,.. 2014-06-02 10:40 GMT+09:00 Masayuki IHARA <ihara.masayuki@lab.ntt.co.jp>: > 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 >> >> >> > > > -- 현욱 드림.
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 09:40:46 UTC