- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:11:17 +0200
- To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Le mardi 21 août 2012 à 16:25 +0000, Travis Leithead a écrit : > This could be problematic. Many of the V2 features noted in the "out" > section below, could have designs that necessitate changes to V1. I agree this is a risk; my thinking is that we should design as much a non-core features [*] to feel confident that we have a solid core, and once we get there, leave them out of the way for the core to go to Rec (e.g. not having to test them). [*] I'm using "core"/"non-core" rather than "v1"/"v2" since I think we would be defining modules that plug onto the core, rather than versions I'll note in general that this thread has two or three separate (but obviously complementary) topics: * whether we should have a modular approach to our specs * what these modules should be * which should be developed in priority It might help to collect input on these points separately to get a better picture of the group's perspective. Dom
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 13:11:41 UTC