Re: Missing definitions for parameters in MediaTrackCapabilties/MediaTrackConstraints?

> On Apr 20, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 20 April 2015 at 05:40, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>> There's more text on what they mean in section 14.1, "Track
>> Constrainable Property Registration".
> 
> 
> Can we remove the registry?  Is there any reason that we can't simply
> maintain the document with the definitions of the things we are using?

I view the registry as a simple way to do exactly that. Imagine a company doing a webrtc based internet doorbell. They are effectively building a single purpose browser - they are not one of the big browser vendors - and they might be doing standardizes at some other SDO such as OIC. This small company, or another SDO,  needs a clear way to be able to reserve a name to use. The registry also provide people a pointer to some documentation that might help in interoperable reuse of new paramaters. 

Just edit the live document will be fine for mozilla and google but far less likely to work for people who are not long term contributors to that the WG. Many people have found it outrageously frustrating to try and get something added to the whatWG specs for example. IANA will execute whatever rules we give them for keeping the a document with all the things that we are using and they will continue to do it over long periods of time. 

When we just have a document, it often becomes a huge pain over time. The bonjour labels are a great example of something that took a lot of work to get moved to IANA from a document on the web.

Received on Monday, 18 May 2015 23:57:40 UTC