- From: s p <sebpiq@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:14:31 +0200
- To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Cc: Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com>, "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>, Jens Nockert <jens@nockert.se>, Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>, Olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
- Message-ID: <CAGKuoCV5R-X7UU02e9tkgdN1V5Y11Fjb+TVfkHCCkykC-rn5FQ@mail.gmail.com>
> I've just proposed a Community Group for continuing the work on the Web Array Math API I'm pretty interested with that as well :) Jussi and I have already started to write some audio dsp extension on top of Web Array Math API (polyfill of course) : https://github.com/jussi-kalliokoski/audiolib.js/tree/next 2013/11/14 Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> > Having technical discussions around a technology or even potential API > isn't a problem; you're correct, that's what Community Groups are for. If > the goal truly is to just generate a Rec-track specification, however, > that's not what they're for; they can effectively produce a Note > (approximately), that a Working Group (with its due process) could then rip > apart completely (i.e., the "input to the standards process" should not be > considered a fait accompli when it is handed to a Working Group). That's > all I was trying to express. > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com> wrote: > >> Well, it's the first time I'm doing this, so please bare with me. The >> idea is basically to have technical discussions around a potential >> API. I don't see a problem with doing that around something looking >> like a spec (non standard-track of course), though. In fact, the >> Community and Business Group FAQ states, under "What is a W3C >> Community Group?": >> >> "A W3C Community Group is an open forum, without fees, where Web >> developers and other stakeholders develop specifications, hold >> discussions, develop test suites, and connect with W3C's international >> community of Web experts. Community Groups may produce Specifications; >> these are not standards-track documents but may become input to the >> standards process. [...]" >> >> /Marcus >> >> 2013/11/14 Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>: >> > If the goal of this group is to produced a specification, it really >> > shouldn't be done inside a Community Group. Community Groups are only >> > intended to produce Community Group Reports (e.g., a technology >> innovation >> > from a small set of developers). As per the W3C's guidelines, Community >> > Groups Reports are not standards-track documents. >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Jens Nockert <jens@nockert.se> wrote: >> >> >> >> I signed up. >> >> >> > >> >> > -- *Sébastien Piquemal* -----* @sebpiq* ----- http://github.com/sebpiq ----- http://funktion.fm
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 21:14:58 UTC