- From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:31:28 -0700
- To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>, "Travis Leithead" <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>, <public-media-capture@w3.org>
I think that modular specs are a good idea because they force you to analyze the domain rigorously. But, as you and Travis both point out, we have to do a substantial amount of work on all the modules before we can move any of them to standard status. So modularity may not speed things up much. - Jim -----Original Message----- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 9:11 AM To: Travis Leithead Cc: Harald Alvestrand; public-media-capture@w3.org Subject: RE: A sketch of a V1 of the media capture API specifciation 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 15:33:09 UTC