Difference between revisions of "CELF Project Proposal/Extend DLNA specifications"

From eLinux.org
Jump to: navigation, search
(add proposal)
 
(Add Category Project proposals)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
; Proposer : Benjamin Zores
 
 
 
; Summary : Extend the DLNA specifications
 
; Summary : Extend the DLNA specifications
 +
 +
; Proposer : Benjamin Zores
  
 
== Description ==
 
== Description ==
Line 29: Line 29:
  
 
== Scope ==
 
== Scope ==
This should probably take up to 2 months of writting efforts and much  more for lobbying.
+
This should probably take up to 2 months of writing efforts and much  more for lobbying.
  
 
== Comments ==
 
== Comments ==
 +
Tim Bird wrote:
 +
<pre>
 +
This was discussed at the last OSS DLNA mini-summit, in 2008.
 +
Attendees decided it would be good, but actual progress getting
 +
something put together to submit to DLNA was missing.
 +
</pre>
 +
 +
[[Category:Project proposals]]

Latest revision as of 19:40, 6 May 2011

Summary 
Extend the DLNA specifications
Proposer 
Benjamin Zores

Description

DLNA has become a de-facto standard for multimedia content access among Home consumers devices (TVs, NAS, SetTopBox ...).

Based on UPnP A/V specifications, the DLNA ones however limit its potential to only a very small subset of multimedia files. As a result, many files aren't natively "DLNA-compliant" (while perfectly valid and playable) and require the server to transcode A/V streams to be streamed. This is actually quite impossible on embedded devices due to the impressive required CPU processing resources. See http://gxben.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/why-do-i-hate-dlna-protocol-so-much/ for more details.

The idea is to get involved with DLNA Alliance to extend the existing specifications to support more profiles, mainly:

The project requires no development but specifications redaction and companies support fro being accepted by DLNA Alliance members.

Related work

Scope

This should probably take up to 2 months of writing efforts and much more for lobbying.

Comments

Tim Bird wrote:

This was discussed at the last OSS DLNA mini-summit, in 2008.
Attendees decided it would be good, but actual progress getting
something put together to submit to DLNA was missing.