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 addresses in URIs (we have pattern for domains, but nothing > for IP addresses) > > and/or > > - possibility to exclude local (definition needed: I proposed to leave it out > of scope if we cannot agree, but it could be home or corporate network or > private LAN etc) - network resource from being controlled with <access> > element. This acts as a kind of (loosely defined) pattern for IP addresses.
Keeping things simple, the most compelling use case I can see (aka the one I care about...) is where the developer wants to write a widget that can access resources on a network with no centralised DNS or developer-predictable IP addresses. This is the case for many home networks. As a concrete example, one of my projects here at BBC R&D is to write a web API for networked televisions and set-top boxes that fits this use case precisely. We'd like widget developers to be able to access it just as easily as native application developers can, and the current WARP spec precludes this. So it's not just about UPnP. (FWIW, we're seriously considering Robin's suggestion that the BBC appoint me as a representative on the webapps WG, but right now I'm not a member. Nevertheless I can put forward some implementation suggestions if that would be of interest to the group.) S
