Re: updating the requirements document

On 06/21/2012 08:42 PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
> Many of Section 5’s discussion points have been brought up in the list.
> The Chairs have also tried to close on some of those issues.
>
> Chairs, do you have a list of the issues and what their status’ are? If
> we can cross-references the various discussion points in Section 5 to
> the issues list and add the current status of each, it would help make
> those parts of Section 5 more relevant.

What is available is lisst of open and closed items at 
http://www.w3.org/wiki/Media_Capture as well as issues in the tracker 
(http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/mediacap/track/actions/).

I think section 5 contains a lot of useful things. Some can be moved 
into requirements (e.g. from 5.1.1: "Specific information about a given 
webcam and/or microphone must not be available until after the user has 
granted consent."). Others are more of informational nature (such as 
tools for pre-/post-processing that is already part of the web platform).

What I think we should do at this stage is to copy the requirements that 
are (sometimes implicitly) put up in section 5 into section 3; but leave 
section 5 as is.

At a later stage we can look into updating section 5.

Br,
Stefan

>
> I don’t think adding new scenarios to section 2 is something we should
> do at this time (I recall a recent mail thread about that…)
>
> *From:*Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 21, 2012 8:04 AM
> *To:* public-media-capture@w3.org
> *Subject:* updating the requirements document
>
> I’m looking at the requirements doc. I gather that I should start
> filling in section 3 with requirements extracted from the scenarios in
> section 1. (There have been a couple of emails with suggestions).
> However I am wondering what to do with section 5
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/media-stream-capture/scenarios.html#design-considerations-and-remarks.
> It contains a more open-ended discussion of things like privacy,
> previewing, pre- and post-processing, device selection, etc. It seems to
> me that there are a lot of requirements that could be mined out of it.
> Should section 5 be turned into concrete scenarios and moved to section
> 2? Or should we continue working on it where it is?
>
> In any case, I think that section 5 will require discussion in the group
> since it covers a fairly broad range of topics and lists a number of
> open issues.
>
> -Jim
>

Received on Friday, 22 June 2012 05:28:35 UTC