W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-websignage@w3.org > February 2018

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

From: 田中 清 <tanaka.kiyoshi@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 18:14:46 +0900
Message-ID: <d3072594-0212-f3f8-6fe0-4a6c7351a81f@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: public-websignage@w3.org
Dear Chaals,

Thank you for your reply (and, I'm sorry for my late reply).
I'm happy to hear the good news that we could make standards for the browser that is not supposed to be used by the human.

In our previous discussion, the use of the browser in Web-based signage is definitely different from that by the human.
In this point, we need to reconfigure our use-case document as we've recognized.

Best regards,
Kiyoshi
---
Kiyoshi Tanaka, Ph.D.
   NTT Service Evolution Laboratories
   mailto:tanaka.kiyoshi@lab.ntt.co.jp


On 2018/01/24 19:29, Chaals McCathie Nevile wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:12:53 +0100, Kiyoshi Tanaka (田中 清) <tanaka.kiyoshi@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> ...
>> So, I think the target browser could be extend to other than the signage but limited to the machine use.
>> In such case, I want to know whether the W3C standardization allows the target browser except uses by human being.
>> If possible, we could consider the APIs for the browser that is not supposed to be used by human.
>> Does anyone know the policy?
> 
> W3C will standardise web technology that gets deployment.
> 
> In this case, there is no policy problem I can see, so long as specs either clarify that the security model means something *should not* be implemented in a "general use" browser - but then it is harder to show that it is the right thing to standardise so you need to be extra clear explaining the use cases and requirements, or they do things that will not cause security problems in a general use browser - which seem the more obvious path.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Chaals
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2018 09:15:40 UTC

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