RE: Going forward with FPWD-ing the Recording API

Hi Stefan,
Qualcomm Innovation Center (QuIC) renews its objection to this spec being made an FPWD.

I have also pointed out to the Editors that based on my understanding this is a deliverable by the Media Capture TF and not the WebRTC WG, but the front matter still states "This document was published by the Web Real-Time Communication Working Group as an Editor's Draft".  Can we at least clarify where this spec belongs, and modify the corresponding charter accordingly?  If it is truly a WebRTC WG deliverable, then I may withdraw the objection on procedural grounds as QuIC is not a member of the WebRTC WG.

-Giri Mandyam

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Håkansson LK [mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 4:22 AM
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: Going forward with FPWD-ing the Recording API

Hi all,

at the last teleconf (December 6 2012) there was a discussion regarding publishing the Recording API proposal we're working on as a FPWD (unfortunately the minutes are not yet available).

The outcome of that discussion was (this is the recollection of the
chairs) that the Editor's should do one more iteration, and then we would return to the question.

On December 20 the Editor's sent out an updated Editor's draft [1].

We would now like to move forward. Unless the TF thinks we should not do this, we intend to initiate calls for consensus to publish as FPWD in the DAP and WebRTC WGs next week.

So, if you think this is a bad idea, say so on this mail list!

Stefan for the chairs

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Dec/att-0159/RecordingProposal.html

Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 14:13:54 UTC