RE: Going forward with FPWD-ing the Recording API

> This is clearly a deliverable of the Media Capture TF (recording was part of the original version of the "Media Streams and Capture" document but was moved into its own document). The draft should be updated to say this.

Then the draft should be clearly updated before this can go forward into FPWD in my opinion.  I would recommend reproducing the text in the current Media Capture API draft:
" This document was published by the Web Real-Time Communication Working Group and Device APIs Working Group as an Editor's Draft. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-media-capture@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All comments are welcome."

Also, I think that the text of the TF charter should be changed to reflect the new deliverable.  I would recommend changing the current charter (provided in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2011Nov/0071.html) in the following ways:

" The Media Capture Task Force is a joint task force of the Web Real-Time Communications and Device APIs WGs that aims to produce APIs to capture media from cameras and microphones in a manner that is both simple for local-only use cases and amenable to real-time streaming. This work will be produced by iterating over the existing "getUserMedia()" API."

Should become

" The Media Capture Task Force is a joint task force of the Web Real-Time Communications and Device APIs WGs that aims to produce APIs to capture media from cameras and microphones in a manner that is both simple for local-only use cases and amenable to real-time streaming."

And

"Given that this deliverable is covered by both groups' charters, the resulting specification will be covered by the union of RF commitments for both groups."

To

" Given that the deliverables are covered by both groups' charters, the resulting specifications will be covered by the union of RF commitments for both groups."

> Hi Giri, could you elaborate a bit on why you object?

I have no objections regarding technical scope currently covered by the document.  If the editors make the necessary changes in the front matter I will withdraw my objection.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Håkansson LK [mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:23 AM
To: Mandyam, Giridhar
Cc: public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: Re: Going forward with FPWD-ing the Recording API

On 2013-01-23 15:13, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:
> Hi Stefan, Qualcomm Innovation Center (QuIC) renews its objection to 
> this spec being made an FPWD.

Hi Giri, could you elaborate a bit on why you object?
>
> 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.

This is clearly a deliverable of the Media Capture TF (recording was part of the original version of the "Media Streams and Capture" document but was moved into its own document). The draft should be updated to say this.

Best regards,
Stefan

>
> -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-0
> 159/RecordingProposal.html
>

Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 01:56:06 UTC