ISSUE-17

issue-17?

<trackbot> ISSUE-17 -- Use Case: Home Network Enabled User-Agent -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/17

kaz: let's close this

everyone: ok

close issue-17

<trackbot> ISSUE-17 Use Case: Home Network Enabled User-Agent closed

ISSUE-24

issue-24?

<trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Local Link of web applications -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/24

-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Jul/0046.html Igarashi's update

igarashi: added description on API types
... issue-24 itself is a generic API

-> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/LocalLink#Use_Case:_Local_Link_of_Web_Applications Wiki description of ISSUE-24

kaz: is the wiki description also updated?

igarashi: yes

kaz: do you want to include the information on ISSUE-9 and Opera's API proposal in the wiki description as well?

igarashi: no, it's just additional explanation on what "generic API" means

kaz: any opinion?
... if no objection, let's accept this proposal ISSUE-24

RESOLUTION: accept ISSUE-24

ISSUE-20

matt: would like to start with 20

issue-20?

<trackbot> ISSUE-20 -- TV Querying and Control -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/20

-> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/TVControl Wiki description of ISSUE-20

matt: restructured the issue
... possible interaction scenario is included
... JavaScript level API proposal for discussion as well

matt: (describes the detail of the proposal)

jerry: trying to understand
... target of the application which execute the API
... how to know where to execute APIs?
... home network devices could have a gateway
... server needs to know where to get the content from

matt: the intention is implementing APIs as JavaScript and use from Web browsers
... what content is available where is an issue
... suppose DLNA terminology, media rendering device?

jerry: I think what you're saying is a TV device

matt: could be a TV device
... or a desktop browser

jerry: target of the API is a processing engine that has capability
... being discovered by the browser
... and capable of executing the APIs
... and that can describe what devices are/

igarashi: in this scenario, application is rather a device
... but application is running on devices

matt: will update the text

igarashi: this service-specific API is supported by the TV as well?

matt: the API could be supported by TV if it can process JavaScript

clarke: your suggestion is higher level API
... list of functions
... right?

matt: yes

igarashi: in scenario 1, there are several options
... maybe you should not use sequence number, but should use non-ordered list
... the first step "The application discovers..." should be done first, though

matt: will change

bob: a question
... level of APIs
... high-level APIs is useful
... but what level of APIs should be used?

matt: there is ability for application

bob: we started a high-level APIs within AT&T, and would like to know how to cover the other implementations
... need more sophisticated kind of APIs?

matt: if you have information to share with me, would be appreciated

bob: agree the trade-off
... but how much task is expected for a User Agent?
... clarke's paper will be soon available

clarke: if we do something Bob suggested, i.e., lower-level APIs implementable
... any preference from W3C viewpoint?

kaz: both levels would be welcome and useful
... our proposals should go to the other WGs, e.g., DeviceAPIs and WebApps
... if they don't work very well for our proposals, we should create yet another WG :)

<scribe> ACTION: matt to update issue-20 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/26-webtv-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Update issue-20 [on Matt Hammond - due 2011-08-02].

igarashi: comment on scenario 2
... specific program?

matt: question on step 2?

igarashi: yes

matt: list of content available could be provided
... and we could ask the TV which program is available now

igarashi: ok

kaz: igarashi, do you want clarification in scenario 2?

igarashi: "application query" would be easier to understand?

matt: will use the term

ISSUE-19

issue-19?

<trackbot> ISSUE-19 -- Media Identification -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/19

-> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/MediaIdentification Wiki description of ISSUE-19

matt: content identifier
... hopefully more clear
... related to part of issue-20

kaz: do you think a specific URI could be used?

matt: a URI is a possibility
... BBC would like to include URI style identifier
... some provider might use different kind of identifier on some platform

kaz: can we accept this proposal?

everybody: no objections

RESOLUTION: ISSUE-19 is accepted

ISSUE-21

issue-21?

<trackbot> ISSUE-21 -- Time synchronisation -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/21

<MattH> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/TimeSynchronisation Wiki description of ISSUE-21

matt: have no time to update this...
... (explains the proposal)
... similar to issue-19, any high-level APIs could be supported rather than application-specific APIs

kaz: you'll update the description, and we should talk about this next week?

matt: yes

kaz: no more proposals for today?

matt: no

kaz: any other topics?

everybody: no

kaz: ok. let's adjourn this call and talk with you all next week
... Giuseppe will be also available next week

[ adjourned ]