W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > December 2010

Re: ACTION-207: Poll regarding the fact that RTSP will be discussed in a separate note

From: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 15:05:57 +0100
Message-ID: <4D14A8C5.6050508@ugent.be>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Same here, an appendix or a separate document doesn't matter for me. As 
long as RTSP can be published while at the same time we can reach CR in 
January.

Best regards,

Davy

Op 24/12/2010 13:11, Silvia Pfeiffer schreef:
> Oh, if putting RTSP specs in an appendix doesn't stop the spec from
> progressing, that would be a clear winner IMHO.
> Silvia.
>
> 2010/12/24 RaphaŽl Troncy<raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>:
>> Dear Dave,
>>
>>> The poll outlines 3 possibilities, and then has a yes/no possibility
>>> to answer, and there is no question (no question mark), so I find
>>> myself unable to answer!
>> Apologies, I always found difficult to phrase correctly a yes/no question
>> while giving the appropriate context.
>> As Silvia said, the question was:
>>
>> "Should the processing of Media Fragment URI over the RTSP protocol be
>> described in a separate document with the status of a WG Note?"
>>
>> and you answered "yes" with the comment "I don't mind, it should be
>> published" ... which I understand, you don't mind where it is published.
>>
>> There is a consensus that this document should be published and be publicly
>> available. The question is therefore how and where? The poll is meant to
>> decide if the group wants this piece *in* the reck track spec OR *outside*
>> the spec (i.e. in the WG Note).
>>
>> The cost for putting it in the rec track spec is to issue another LC WD. So
>> far, Davy and Jack consider this cost as too high. Silvia has a clear
>> preference for having this in the spec, but "will not stand in the group's
>> way though". Philip introduced a third way: having this part in the spec,
>> but as an informal appendix.
>>
>> I have re-opened the poll so that more people can answer: Erik, Raphael,
>> Yves, Thomas, Michael, Conrad, at least ...
>> Best wishes.
>>
>>   RaphaŽl
>>
>> --
>> RaphaŽl Troncy
>> EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
>> 2229, route des CrÍtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
>> e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr&  raphael.troncy@gmail.com
>> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
>> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
>> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy
Received on Friday, 24 December 2010 14:06:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:40 GMT