Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

Thanks David, the revised comment lgtm. Making SecondScreen WG focusing on interoperability first would be a better direction for now. Best Regards, Shih-Chiang Chien Mozilla Taiwan On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > Thanks for doing this David. The

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

Thanks for doing this David. The objection here is very neatly put. I hope that we can do something soon to help address the shortcoming regarding the protocol. On 6 Jan. 2018 2:26 pm, "Tantek Çelik" wrote: > This is an improvement and I think has a better chance of

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

This is an improvement and I think has a better chance of effecting change with the specific proposals. We're still making this an FO right? (I think we should) perhaps: s/We would ask that:/We ask (formal objection) that: Your "open to other paths" closing statement provides an out to

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

Looks good. Thanks, David! On 1/5/18 1:58 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > So after a little off-list discussion with SC, I have a somewhat > revised proposal for comments that perhaps proposes what might be a > more acceptable remedy (although thanks to timezones I don't > actually know what SC

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

So after a little off-list discussion with SC, I have a somewhat revised proposal for comments that perhaps proposes what might be a more acceptable remedy (although thanks to timezones I don't actually know what SC thinks of this proposal). -David = The current situation with the API

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

Agreed. Thanks for the careful wording, David! (BTW s/apple/Apple/) On 1/5/18 9:08 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > LGTM! > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 9:56 PM, L. David Baron > wrote: > > So I think Martin, Peter, and I share similar concerns here, and

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

LGTM! On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 9:56 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > So I think Martin, Peter, and I share similar concerns here, and I'm > inclined to turn those concerns into an objection to this charter. > > So how does this sound for proposed comments on the charter > (submitted

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

So I think Martin, Peter, and I share similar concerns here, and I'm inclined to turn those concerns into an objection to this charter. So how does this sound for proposed comments on the charter (submitted as a formal objection)? Note that I've tried to turn the comments into a specific

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

+1 to Martin's feedback. On 1/3/18 10:19 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > Without the protocol pieces, this remains vendor-specific. We should > comment on this and make it clear that we think that definition of a > generic protocol for interacting with the second display has not been > given

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

Without the protocol pieces, this remains vendor-specific. We should comment on this and make it clear that we think that definition of a generic protocol for interacting with the second display has not been given sufficient priority. Allowing this to proceed without a generic protocol would be

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

The SecondScreen WG intended to move the protocol development to CG, and will possibly move to IETF after the incubation phase. The revised charter is trying to associate the work of CG to the timeline of Presentation API development. At the meantime, WG will tackle the testability issue found

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

I've submitted a response in support of the charter, without comments. -David On Monday 2016-10-24 10:47 +0800, Shih-Chiang Chien wrote: > Support revised charter. > > The revised charter creates some flexibility for us to promote Flyweb as a > new feature in Presentation API Level 2, which has

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Second Screen Working Group

I have reviewed the charter and the current set of deliverables. The work appears to be proceeding reasonably (pragmatically, with many members/implementers including Apple and Google) and reasonably minimally scoped. There is also the companion Second Screen Community Group which appears to be