Art,
My regrets, but due to conflicts I will be unable to attend this VC, or next
week's (assuming one is scheduled).
S
On 10 Feb 2010, at 13:29, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Below is the draft agenda for the 11 February Widgets Voice Conference (VC).
Inputs and discussion before the VC on all
On 4 Feb 2010, at 15:15, Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:09:26 +0100, Stephen Jolly stephen.jo...@rd.bbc.co.uk
wrote:
As actioned in the 21st Jan teleconference, here are the use cases that have
motivated my specific proposal for supporting local network access in the
WARP
All,
As actioned in the 21st Jan teleconference, here are the use cases that have
motivated my specific proposal for supporting local network access in the WARP
spec (see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010JanMar/0173.html for
details).
1. A developer wishes to write
On 21 Jan 2010, at 07:18, Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:04:18 +0100, Stephen Jolly
stephen.jo...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote:
Anyway, the specific proposal I would like to make is for another special
value of the origin attribute of the access element in the widget
configuration
All,
Back in December I volunteered (http://www.w3.org/2009/12/10-wam-minutes.html)
to propose an alteration / supplement to WARP to permit widget access to
resources on local networks with no managed DNS system. Such resources do not
fit into the current WARP model of listing origins in the
On 3 Dec 2009, at 11:24, Robin Berjon wrote:
It would be really great if you were to join this group. If you are already
following this list, and willing to make implementation proposals, it
wouldn't necessarily take more of your time than it already does — probably
no more than an extra
On 2 Dec 2009, at 13:05, Marcin Hanclik wrote:
I am sorry for bypassing earlier comments, I want to answer them anyway asap.
So here comes short summary.
What are we trying to solve?
Forgetting the UPnP and related stacks, the issues can be summarized as
follows:
- pattern for IP
On 20 Nov 2009, at 17:12, Marcin Hanclik wrote:
As discussed on the yesterday's call, I committed to CVS the WARP spec with
the section about local network (required for UPnP use cases) at:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-access-upnp/
Clearly there are usage scenarios based on technologies
Phil Archer wrote:
The problem is finding the right amount of flexibility without making it
too complicated or opening unwanted security holes.
...
It depends on your use cases of course.
I guess the reason I've joined this discussion is that I'm concerned
that most of the schemes out there
Hi there,
Reading through the current WARP draft, I note that the semantics of the
access element appear to preclude an important use case (for us).
At BBC RD one of the things we're currently working on is the control
of personal video recorders and TV set-top boxes, from other devices on
10 matches
Mail list logo
