kaz: we'll extend the charter period by one month
RESOLUTION: HNTF will extend the charter period until the end of August
kaz: is anybody interested in reviewing HTML5 spec from Home Networking viewpoint?
igarashi: no particular idea on HTML5
<yosuke> [FYI: I've been reviewing the spec with some broadcasters from broadcasters' point of view.]
kaz: just reviewing part of the spec
... because the spec is huge
matt: no specific interest
russell: can commit
... HTML5 has number of options
<davidmays> there is a lot of noise on the line
<davidmays> it is very difficult to understand
kaz: please send a message to the IG list on your interested section, etc.
<davidmays> yes the noise is gone
kaz: yosuke, could you please also make contribution?
<r> Kaz - I dont understand - is this the html5 item>???
<r> no - I indicated we would *not* be interested!!
<yosuke> [I'd like to mention that my/our review on HTML5 spec will be mainly from broadcasters' point of view, and it may not be in line with HNTF's point of view.]
RESOLUTION: Yosuke is interested in HTML5 review. Note that his review will be not from HNTF viewpoint but from broadcasters' viewpoint
kaz: first one is Igarashi's issue-24
<trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Local Link of web applications -- raised
russell: similar to the one we submitted
kaz: which one?
russell: network player
kaz: the one derived from 17?
kaz: igarashi, what do you think?
igarashi: we may discuss what the
... most use cases are similar
... not only 17 but also 15 etc.
... use cases on generic use cases
... so I'd suggest we add type of use cases first, and then talk about the difference between use cases
... ISSUE-14 is very generic
... and Francois asked about the difference between 14 and 24
<r> This is objectionable in Issue 24 - Type of use case: Application/service agnostic APIs
kaz: igarashi needs to modify that term to "generic"
<r> Should be no mention - just requirements
<r> There are generic and specific solutions deployed
<r> W3C needs to address both
<r> Issue 17 does this already
<r> Issue 23 discusses support for specific deployed implementations
kaz: russell, you're suggesting ISSUE-24 should also mention both the generic APIS and application-specific APIs?
<r> Use cases should describe requirements absent implementation
igarashi: this is not solution discussion, but requirements discussion
<r> We think a Requirement to support Generic APIs is problematic
<r> Generic APIs defeat interoperability!
<r> The use case should specifically discuss Generic APIs and explain their impact on interoperability
<r> This is what ISSUE-24 should do
<r> Then what is the use-case for Issue-24?
igarashi: what we should do first is clarify use cases
<r> How is it different from ISSUE-17?
<r> I think its a valid approach - The use case should clearly state the requirement
<r> For generic API support
<r> Vs standardized API support
<r> Both seem to be valid approaches?
<r> Maybe we should have end-user use-cases and implementation use-cases
kaz: maybe we could ask igarashi to provide some example of generic APIs?
igarashi: Opera's proposal is one of the possible generic APIs
kaz: russell, did you by chance see the generic APIs proposal by Opera (Rich)?
russell: had some private discussion with him
<r> agree with you comment that discussion is out of scope for HNTF
russell: think Opera's proposal is different from ISSUE-24...
igarashi: that is 80% similar to my
proposed use case
... they identify services
russell: Opera's target is not
generic API but based on existing solutions
... it has binding to existing solutions like JSON
igarashi: that (how to solve use case
requirements) is a different level from use cases discussion
... what do you want to clarify?
russell: need to identify which home network technology should be used
kaz: are you suggesting each use case should mention which existing technology should be used?
russell: that should be guidance to
the other groups
... would be helpful for the discussion in the other WGs
kaz: we should concentrate on clarifying use cases and requirements for this HNTF charter period, and then talk about expectation for binding to existing standards, e.g., UPnP, DLNA.
... and at later stage, we need to consider eco-system specific use cases, etc.
... is it possible to add eco-system specific use cases category to the requirements document
kaz: we need to talk with Giuseppe as
well, but should be ok
... could you please add some note or description to your use case about that point (=eco-system specific, etc.)
russell: e.g., ISSUE-23
... also would like to provide some proposal for requirements document construction
[ adjourned ]