- From: Paul Adenot <padenot@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:45:27 +0200
- To: "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
On 29/08/2013 14:15, Marcus Geelnard wrote: > Your case is a very good example of why such behavior should be > specified normatively in the specification (i.e. the C++ source code of > a particular implementation can not act as a replacement for a proper > specification). The underspecified DynamicsCompressorNode is a known > issue, see: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17362 (which > has not yet been addressed). > > I think/hope that this group will focus more on fixing spec issues soon > (once we have the data race issue out of the way). Indeed, fixing "spec holes" is the next priority (short and mid-term goals) in terms. I started to triage spec bugs to get a sense of the size of the task. We have a certain backlog to process (140 open spec bugs, and quite a few decision made by email that haven't been reflected in the spec, which forces us to cross check the spec and the email threads, which is a pain). Hopefully this situation won't happen in the future. Cheers, Paul.
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2013 12:45:50 UTC