Editor’s Draft: http://w3c.github.io/presentation-api/
Working Draft: http://www.w3.org/TR/presentation-api/
Note that the working drafts are published automatically off of the ED:
Tag review info:
Adds support for presentation of Web content on connected displays. Web pages may request presentation of a URL and Chrome will present it on a connected display using various screen sharing technologies implemented by Chrome. The controlling page is able to control the presented page via two-way messaging.
Link to “Intent to Implement” blink-dev discussion
Intent to Implement conversation:
Is this feature supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)?
Yes, except for Android WebView, where underlying Android framework API changes would be required, e.g. in order to provide a device picker UI.
To use this demo you'll need to launch Chromium (ToT or Canary) with the following flags (or set them in ://flags): --enable-media-router --enable-extension-action-redesign --enable-experimental-web-platform-features
If the developer wishes to view the lower level interactions between the browser and the display, they can run Chrome with --show-component-extension-options and view console messages from the Media Router component extension.
Low-moderate. Mozilla has been active in the working group. Interoperability between browsers and displays is challenging because of the proprietary nature of existing screen sharing technologies.
Mozilla tracking bug for WebIDL implementation: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1069230.
The current implementation supports all required aspects of the specification. However one of the features the spec describes is "1UA mode," in which content for the remote display is rendered locally by the browser (for Chromium, we plan to do this in an offscreen tab), then mirrored to the second screen using some protocol. This is contrast to "2UA mode," in which the second screen content is fetched and rendered by the remote display itself. 1UA mode isn't presently implemented, though we do plan to add it over the remainder of this quarter (likely in time for M47). Nonetheless, 1UA mode isn't a requirement of the spec; browser vendors can choose to support it, or not.
OWP launch tracking bug
Entry on the feature dashboard
Is there a bug filed for this not working on WebView?
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Mounir Lamouri <mou...@lamouri.fr> wrote:
> https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/153 - it's a general and
> vague issue, no real action item at the moment.
That seems like the biggest issue of them all.
It confirms that this
is basically an API atop of a protocol which is not standardized.
From: rby...@google.com [mailto:rby...@google.com] On Behalf Of Rick Byers
> What's your take on the TAG feedback? Some of it sounds like maybe it could lead to wanting to make a breaking change to the API.
I am curious on the answer to this to. The feedback about how it is similar-to but subtly-different-from other existing APIs, like postMessage and Fullscreen, seemed especially interesting. I didn't see those points addressed in the TAG issues label https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/labels/TAG.
> In particular, Domenic's idea of using the writable stream API here (rather than introduce but-yet-another special-purpose stream API) sounds to me like it might have some merit but may not be worth waiting for. It's up to the WG to weigh the tradeoffs and decide - but IMHO we should know the conclusion of that discussion before shipping.
Thanks for highlighting this! I opened a bigger issue explaining how both readable and writable streams would work well here: https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/163
But I really don't want to put writable streams on the critical path for this API. Or for any others, at least until I am confident they are ready. So please don't wait :). Streams are in that kind of awkward phase that you may remember from the early days of promises, where they are gelling into something we can start spreading everywhere, but aren't quite there yet.
That said, if any of the spec editors or Blink implementers have encouraging comments along the lines of "yes, that sounds like a good idea, we're very interested in doing so as soon as you send us a spec pull request" I'd be happy to hear that :). Or negative comments too, of course! The silence is a bit unnerving.