-- Marcos Caceres
On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Rich Tibbett wrote: > Marcos Caceres wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 10, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: > > > > > It's important to separate Intents as currently proposed and what we > > > collectively want out of them. In order to move fast we probably don't > > > want to pile up a zillion features there, but we equally certainly don't > > > want this to turn into a rubber-stamping exercise. So bring the UCs on! > > > > > > - Hide quoted message - > > > > Perhaps someone could take the time to describe exactly how a user > > > > could communicate with an existing TV device in their home from a web > > > > browser supporting web intents based on the above requirements? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We actually agreed that folks in the Discovery/Home Networking gang would > > > do just that, to see if it flies. > > Also, a prototype might help here …. i.e., it's not up to the WG to explain > > how it does what you want, but up to you to show that it doesn't do > > something you want through a prototype (or similar) to do. If your > > prototype breaks down because the intents system doesn't work without > > extensions, then we have something to work from. > > > > Agree? > > Yes. I don't doubt this logic :) A use case I keep thinking about is: 1. I'm at Youtube.com, and I want to watch a video on my tv. 2. I tell youtube, "hey, sent this to my TV". 3. Video starts playing on my TV. 4. I turn the audio up/down on the youtube video (or I scrub the timeline). How does that work? Is that all still done over HTTP and the intent (i.e., the audio control)? I guess it's like the "intent" is ongoing while some activity is happening (watching the video on my tv). I don't know if the current proposal supports such a thing or if it's more "fire and forget". Anyway, just thinking out loud… guess we can pick this up in the new list.
