W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Proposed update of Milestones

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:44:27 +0200
Message-ID: <502DF65B.4030609@alvestrand.no>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 08/16/2012 08:17 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 16 August 2012 10:45, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>> On 08/16/2012 02:42 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>> On 14 August 2012 06:33, Stefan Hakansson LK
>>> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>>> Proposed milestones:
>>>> FPWD: Q3 2011 (MS already passed, met in Q4 2011)
>>>> LC: January 2013
>>>> CR: March 2013
>>>> PR: Q2 2013
>>>> Rec: Q3 2012.
>>> These are aggressive.  Have the chairs discussed splitting the work
>>> into smaller, more achievable portions so that more important items
>>> could be completed ahead of other lower priority items?
>> We think we have something close to the minimum set necessary to achieve our
>> use cases now. If there are candidates for elimination that do not need
>> elimination of use cases, or if there are specific use cases that you don't
>> think we should consider for V1, please speak up.
> That presumes that V1 is an atom.  That's a pretty big atom.
V1 ("the first release") is an atom, in the sense that there can only be 
one.
>
> Media and data channel seem readily separable.  I'm not sure where we
> stand with the IdP stuff, but that would be another such piece.
> Apologies to my friends at Mozilla, who I know are deeply invested in
> these particular features, but I'm sure we will hear from them if my
> assessment on maturity is off-base.
Both of these features are also missing from the present Chrome release. 
I don't think the full IdP stuff can make V1; it's unclear to me if an 
interface can be defined that allows it to be specified separately and 
used by V1 implementations if present.

The data channel is, at the moment, a much more frequently requested 
feature; the spec is currently in and has had very few comments.
>
> I'm sure that given sufficient motivation, other pieces could be moved
> later to facilitate shipping something sooner.
>
> Fission of heavy atoms tends to lead to smaller pieces, and energy.
> I'll let you judge whether that energy could be harnessed.
(physics nerd alert)
only if what you're dealing with is heavier than iron.... splitting of 
lighter elements consumes energy, and we can harness more energy by 
fusing them togheter. So is the current spec carbon or lead?
(any analogy can be stretched until it breaks :-)
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 07:45:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 17 August 2012 07:45:13 GMT