RE: Concluding initial list of constraints (was Proposal on initial list of constrains)

Sorry, I don't agree with this assessment.  Please keep the note as it stands.

I did not realize that this was an official request from the chairs.  In fact, the original request was not even posted to this list.

-Giri

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Håkansson LK [mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 12:59 AM
To: Harald Alvestrand
Cc: public-media-capture@w3.org
Subject: Concluding initial list of constraints (was Proposal on initial list of constrains)

This has been out for one week now with no comments.

We conclude there is consensus for removing the notes as outlined in the mail below, and ask the editors to do so in the next update of the "Media Capture and Streams" document.

Stefan for the chairs

On 2013-10-22 17:38, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> This seems to have ended up on the wrong list for the spec.
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: 	Proposal on initial list
> of constrains Resent-Date: 	Wed, 09 Oct 2013 19:05:56 +0000
> Resent-From: 	public-webrtc@w3.org Date: 	Wed, 9 Oct 2013 19:05:24
> +0000 From: 	Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com> To:
> public-webrtc@w3.org <public-webrtc@w3.org>
>
>
>
>  The current specification at
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html
>
> has several "example" constraints such as "width", "height" etc.
> However we have notes in 3 places that say this is not the consensus.
> They notes are in states (section 6),  Capability's, section 7.2, and 
> Constraint Registrations in section 13.1.
>
> It would be really nice to move to these to be actually be normative, 
> not just examples and remove the notes saying they do not reflect 
> consensus. At the meeting at the Acme office, we had pretty good 
> consensus in the room that all of the "examples" in the spec become 
> part of the spec instead of just examples. We might add more 
> constraitns later, but I'd like to get the ones currently in the spec 
> in.
>
> Let me know if anyone has any objections to removing the three notes 
> about this.
>
> Thanks, Cullen
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 13:30:06 UTC