- From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:06:57 -0400
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> (ddorwin@google.com)" <ddorwin@google.com>, "Jerry Smith (WPT)" <jdsmith@microsoft.com>, "public-hme-editors@w3.org" <public-hme-editors@w3.org>
On 10/27/2016 11:54 AM, Mark Watson wrote: >> On Oct 27, 2016, at 5:14 AM, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> On 10/26/2016 9:10 PM, Mark Watson wrote: >>> My question, though, is whether EME V2 should take the form of a >>> completely new version of the specification that would (eventually) >>> replace the existing one, or whether we should have a stand-alone >>> specification adding the "persistent-usage-record" session type. The >>> latter is hard to do without monkey-patching unless we introduce >>> explicit extension points. >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> here is what I would recommend we do: >> >> We don't touch the gh-pages branch. Instead, we create a V1 branch for >> now and use that one to remove whatever we need to. > > Ok, so in this case the Editor's Draft at the normal > ED github link will still contain the feature and I suppose becomes > (de facto, but not officially) an ED of V2. > > This is ok for me. correct. >> If folks want to >> publish a separate Note for the removed feature, there will always be >> time to remove the feature from the gh-pages branch later on. > > My hope is that the removed feature is standardized at a later time, > since I do not expect it will be that long before there are compliant > implementations (perhaps early next year). Understood. Philippe
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2016 16:07:05 UTC