W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-websignage@w3.org > December 2017

RE: How to proceed? (Re: BG conference call (Re: TPAC2017))

From: 현욱 <whyun@etri.re.kr>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 01:43:03 +0000
To: "Kiyoshi Tanaka (田中 清)" <tanaka.kiyoshi@lab.ntt.co.jp>, "public-websignage@w3.org" <public-websignage@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3547C9BBE62E844093C527F2EE9D9E3A445A8BD6@SMTP1.etri.info>

Sorry for late response, and thank you for your hard work.

I think it will be enough to limit our specifications to signage-specific browser rather than extending to other embedded system at this time. If we find that the specifications is usable to other embedded system, we can split or reproduce them for general purpose in the future.

Regarding power management issues,
The requirements of power management of signage devices are somewhat differ from battery status API. We are focusing on controlling of power on/off of the signage terminals and displays, and most of those terminals may not have batteries. Of course, it will be great to cooperate with DAS-WG. As pointed out from DAS-WG, it is needed to make our own mature draft for being reviewed by the experts of DAS-WG.



-----Original Message-----
From: "Kiyoshi Tanaka (田中 清)" [mailto:tanaka.kiyoshi@lab.ntt.co.jp] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 6:32 PM
To: public-websignage@w3.org
Cc: Kiyoshi Tanaka <tanaka.kiyoshi@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: How to proceed? (Re: BG conference call (Re: TPAC2017))

Dear all members,

Though I've tried to fix the slot of the conference call, I've not been able to find the good slot, yet.
I want to continue to seek the conference call slot, however, it must be proceeded the discussion.

So, I want to start the discussion in this ML.
The starting point was the e-mail[1] from DAS-WG replied to my proposal.

We should answer to the DAS-WG regarding the following points.
1) Whether APIs are implemented securely within the default browser context.
2) The draft creation of Power Status Management, compared with the Battery Status API.
3) The Context Information's draft (device information) clarified such as on the fingerprinting issue and web-runtime.

Before making a response, I want to know your opinion in the next following points.

a) Our APIs are limited to the signage or extended to the embedded system including the signage.
b) The browser that the APIs are implemented is the general browser or the specific browser such as for the signage.
c) We continue to ask DAS-WG the standardization or not.

In addition, the architecture and the security model should be considered more. So, let me hear regarding these issues.

Anyway, please let us know how do you think about these points.
Your opinion for even one point is also welcomed.

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-websignage/2017Oct/0001.html

Best regards,
Kiyoshi Tanaka, Ph.D.
NTT Service Evolution Laboratories
  mailto: tanaka.kiyoshi@lab.ntt.co.jp
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2017 01:43:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:23:32 UTC