W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > May 2016

RE: Branching of EME and MSE specs

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 23:03:09 +0000
To: Joe Steele <steele@adobe.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "Jerry Smith (IEP)" <jdsmith@microsoft.com>, "David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> (ddorwin@google.com)" <ddorwin@google.com>
CC: "Philippe Le Hegaret (plh@w3.org)" <plh@w3.org>, "'public-html-media@w3.org'" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BLUPR03MB1412ECFDA8B53DC4330581A7EA4E0@BLUPR03MB1412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I am explicitly adding several WG member that have commented on ISSUE-132 to bring this item to their attention.

> However some EME issues marked as V.Next (e.g. issue 132) are still under discussion as to the appropriate milestone. This seems like it would effectively shut down that discussion. Am I interpreting that correctly or would that still be an ongoing discussion?

The WG can continue to discuss VNext issues like [1] but after June 9 we will NOT be able to make any "substantive changes" to the EME specification for this or any other issues in order to stay on our published timeline.

If you or other WG members believe that changes need to be made to the EME specification to either:
a) clarify existing support for this feature or
b) to explicitly add support for this feature then you need to make any such proposals ASAP.

For example, I invite you to review Mark Watson's comment at [2] in which Mark proposes to split out VINonBlocking issues to do a).

/paulc

[1] https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/132
[2] https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/132#issuecomment-208981634

From: Joe Steele [mailto:steele@adobe.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 6:45 PM
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>; 'public-html-media@w3.org' <public-html-media@w3.org>
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret (plh@w3.org) <plh@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Branching of EME and MSE specs


This makes a lot of sense to me in terms of letting the editors finish. However some EME issues marked as V.Next (e.g. issue 132) are still under discussion as to the appropriate milestone. This seems like it would effectively shut down that discussion. Am I interpreting that correctly or would that still be an ongoing discussion?



Joe

________________________________
From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com<mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 1:46:29 PM
To: 'public-html-media@w3.org'
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret (plh@w3.org<mailto:plh@w3.org>)
Subject: Branching of EME and MSE specs

The Chair, Team contact and Editors are discussing when we might branch the EME and MSE specifications so that one branch would be used for our Recommendation track deliverable and the other branch could be used for VNext features and work.

There are really two alternatives to consider here.  Creating a VNext branch when we enter final Candidate Recommendation (CR) stage permits earlier work on VNext features but at the cost of possibly needing to back-level editorial changes from the CR branch to the VNext branch.  Creating the VNext branch later ie when we enter Proposed Recommendation (PR) stage delays work on VNext features but also ensures that no back-level changes are needed between the two branches during the CR work.

Our current plan is to create a VNext branch for MSE and EME when we enter Proposed Recommendation stage in early August 2016 according to our timeline [1].  One major reason for doing this is that we have many editorial issues that we are planning to deal with in July when we are in CR and we want to avoid any additional workload for the Editors.

Your comments or questions on this plan are welcome.

/paulc
HME WG Chair

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2016May/0029.html
Received on Monday, 23 May 2016 23:03:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 May 2016 23:03:45 UTC