- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:25:35 +0200
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 06/20/2014 02:39 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: > I support this work but I would much rather see this done in a WG instead of a TF. The approval processes for documents in TF is very messy and effectively needs to be approved by both the WG. Unless there is a really good reason to do it in a TF instead of of a WG, a WG is better. I realize that it got proposed to this TF just because this is where GUM is but is there any good reason it could not be done in a WG ? I don't think it's much of a difference. It seems strange to declare this to be in DAP's scope, given that the TF is present and active, and it's clearly not in scope for WEBRTC. > > > On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> a group of people have been working on depth track extensions to >> MediaStreams after a short discussion at last year's TPAC. >> >> Use cases and requirements are listed at [1], and there is an initial >> Editor's draft available [2]. >> >> Our plan is to make this draft a deliverable of this TF (the formal >> decision will be when making it a FPWD). Initial editors: Anssi >> Kostiainen and Ningxin Hu. >> >> Chairs >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Media_Capture_Depth_Stream_Extension >> [2] https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-depth/ >> >> >
Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 14:26:09 UTC