Re: Proposals for xAP TSC

["Daniel Berenguer" <dberenguer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, according to my particular vocabulary, "spoil" =
"spur on" :-D

Surprisingly, you got the idea...

Daniel.


--- In xAP_developer@xxxxxxx, Kevin Hawkins <yahoogroupskh@...>
wrote:
>
> Maybe I've misunderstood  what you meant below Daniel but I have never
> advocated superseding BSC with TSC.  I have always intended both being
> used together.  What I have long advocated however is that we need,
> alongside BSC, another generic schema that includes units, decimal and
> negative values which are the main awkward issues in BSC.  We also
need
> this to become as pervasively supported as BSC.     If TSC fits the
bill
> then great and my push (spoiling ?) was to try and get such a schema
> discussed and suitable for purpose rather than just languishing
unused.
> What I think we need is a schema that supports the three critical
> features mentioned previously, and hopefully some niceties from the
list
> below, implemented in a similar way to BSC and yet optionally
supporting
> the extra aspects that are deemed necessary for a complete TSC schema.
> It would be good to create a list of those extra features required in
> TSC - setpoints etc.   If however this and TSC really are two
different
> schema then fine and let's get both of them sorted and adopted.
>
>     Kevin
>
> PS Here's the key BSC limitations I've come across in my own usage
that
> I would like to address with a new 'generic' schema which would meet
the
> majority of needs. However we need to be careful to not encourage
people
> to shoehorn more complex devices into such simplistic generic schema ,
> for example an AV amplifier.
>
> decimal values
> negative values
> units
> min value*
> max value*
> granularity
> incremental level changes  eg +10% or -15/100
> choice devices eg stopplayrewindfastforwardpause
>
> * because of the positive value restrictions these are already handled
> in BSC
>
> These are messy (but possible) to do without breaking BSC but an
> enhanced version could be very similar.
>
>
>
>   On 27/04/2010 14:27, Daniel Berenguer wrote:
> > There is no objection then, I surely was wrong about considering
TSC as an evolution (improvement) of BSC. Kevin's post about spoiling us
towards the switch to TSC didn't help either ;-)
> >
> > Daniel.
> >
> >
> >
>




------------------------------------