W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > June 2012

RE: poll results

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:42:25 +0000
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
CC: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, W3C SysApps <public-sysapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A3FBC547F@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
Part (a large part) of a Media API is getting at media metadata, and that isn't necessarily controversial at all.  It's fairly simple in that to have a field indicating where the thing is that would get passed to a file api.

This would have information about specific media like all the rating, artist, etc information about music files that are not in a file api.  Where the thing is actually put doesn't have to be an essential a part of it. and can be a separate spec (since these charter entries do not necessarily map :1 to specs).

This is an example of the type of thing where we may each have people who work in this particular area who could fruitfully work together merging approaches and wouldn't need to be bothering the larger group.

We shouldn't be preventing people from working together in particular areas of the charter if a group of people form who want to work on it.  The WG as a whole controls when anything moves to any formal stage.  They already have that control. It's now like it will be swamped with reviewing drafts for publication if they don't want to.

We don't (and won't) have the people involved in particular areas on this list until we know what the charter is and can go through our internal permission process.  We're not all assembled for this WG because it doesn't exist yet.  We should pick the topics in scope but not over legislate how the WG works.  Suggest, but let them decide.  Especially on forming some subgroup to work on a topic.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adam Barth [mailto:w3c@adambarth.com]
>Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 7:11 PM
>To: Jungkee Song
>Cc: Dave Raggett; W3C SysApps
>Subject: Re: poll results
>
>On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
>wrote:
>> Why don't we put this in Phase 1?
>>> Media Storage API           5   2   5   3   5
>
>I put Media Storage in phase 2 because it's controversial, which means we're not
>likely to come to consensus about it in the near term.  The main point of
>controversy is whether the API should have a dependency on
><http://www.w3.org/TR/file-system-api/>, which has a large impact on the
>design of the API.
>
>My thinking is that once we get folks in the habit of working together on some of
>the less controversial topics, we'll be in a better position to make progress on
>that issue.
>
>Adam

Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 15:43:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 June 2012 15:43:06 GMT