Re: Adding "Media Capture Depth Stream Extensions" as TF deliverable

On 20/06/14 16:26, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 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.

We should discuss where this work belongs on a longer term. The DAP WG 
is (IIUC) scheduled to close down by the end of the year, and WebRTC is 
only chartered until Feb 28th next year, and as this TF is a joint one 
between those two WGs I assume it would be dissolved once one of the WGs 
close.

But I think that for the time being this TF is the best place for this work.

>
>>
>>
>> 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 14:46:37 UTC