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 extr
] WARP with UPnP, was: RE: [widgets] Draft Minutes for 19
November 2009 Voice Conference
+1, duplicating material is a recipe for disaster.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:22 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 22:22 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
>&
+1, duplicating material is a recipe for disaster.
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:22 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:
On Dec 1, 2009, at 22:22 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Can you please update this to just be a delta?
As far as I know W3C specs, delta documents are u
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:12:23 +0100, Stephen Jolly
wrote:
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 a
On Dec 3, 2009, at 12:12 , Stephen Jolly wrote:
> 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.
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 Dec 2, 2009, at 14:48 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
> Ok, I agree. I will then add an excerpt about the "local" special value and
> its processing model.
Great!
> It will be potentially extremely short.
There's nothing wrong with that, short specs are good!
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com
-Original Message-
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:ro...@berjon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:22 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps
Subject: Re: [WARP4U] WARP with UPnP, was: RE: [widgets] Draft Minutes for 19
On Dec 1, 2009, at 22:22 , Marcin Hanclik wrote:
>>> Can you please update this to just be a delta?
> As far as I know W3C specs, delta documents are usually errata or WG Notes.
What we have been calling delta specification in WebApps are specifications
that add to another. For instance, WARP add
lik
Cc: public-webapps
Subject: Re: [WARP4U] WARP with UPnP
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:18:43 +0100, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
> It would be helpful to have a clear definition of at least: the problem
> statement, use case(s), requirement(s), security considerations,
> proposed syntax and semantics
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:18:43 +0100, Arthur Barstow
wrote:
It would be helpful to have a clear definition of at least: the problem
statement, use case(s), requirement(s), security considerations,
proposed syntax and semantics, UA processing model.
I would propose dropping any syntax and s
On Nov 20, 2009, at 12:12 PM, ext 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/
This draft does not meet my expectations and
+49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com
-Original Message-
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:ro...@berjon.com]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 7:24 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps
Subject: Re: [WARP4U] WARP with UPnP, was: RE: [widgets] Draft Minutes for 19
Hi Marcin,
On Nov 20, 2009, at 18:12 , 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/
What we discussed on the call was actua
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 30, 2009, at 19:13 , Stephen Jolly wrote:
> 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-
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 technologi
Hi All,
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/
Handling of local network is based on my proposal from [1].
Thanks,
Marcin
[1] http://lists.w3.o
17 matches
Mail list logo
