On Fri, 2 Dec 2016, at 15:09, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 12/2/16 6:11 AM, Shih-Chiang Chien wrote: > > We implement 1-UA mode described in spec. Session resumption and many-to-1 > > session is not available in this mode. > ..... > > Google have release this API on both desktop and Android browser for 2-UAs > > mode (see https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/6676265876586496), which > > allows web page to communicate with Chromecast receiver apps. They are > > implementing 1-UA mode as well, see > > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink-dev/HZ_ZHEE9oDo > > Just to make sure I understand: > > 1) Google ships "2-UAs" mode. On which platforms?
Mobile and Desktop. Chrome Android supports Cast devices. On desktop I believe DIAL is also supported. > 2) We are planning to ship 1-UA mode on Android only, for the moment. > 3) Google is implementing 1-UA mode on desktop only, for the moment. Correct. Intent to ship has been sent on blink-dev. Chrome Android should follow. > Is that a correct summary of the current interop situation? > > If it is, I have some questions: > > A) How are sites expected to make use of this in practice given the > above? > B) If a site is written to Google's 2-UAs implementation, what happens > when it runs in Firefox with the 1-UA implementation? Can it detect > that it's dealing with a 1-UA implementation instead of a 2-UAs one? > Does it need to do such detection? Do sites do it in practice? The answers to these two questions is very similar. The spec allows to pass an array of URLs to the `PresentationRequest` constructor. That will allow developers to pass Chrome Cast, DIAL and HTTP links (usually called 1-UA mode). Potentially also a Firefox OS TV app URL if they are still different from regular HTTP links. Assuming a website only cares for Chrome Cast support (ie. a variation of 2-UA mode), the implementation will expose whether there are available displays to use. Assuming an implementation doesn't support Chrome Cast, the website will believe that there is no device available around, the same way as an implementation supporting the device but without one available. > Do we have any indications from Apple or Microsoft as to whether they > plan to implement this API? Apple has been contributing to the discussions. I would say that they showed interest but as usual, we can't deduce any implementation plans. As far as I know, Microsoft never said anything about this API. -- Mounir _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
