- From: Mandyam, Giridhar <mandyam@quicinc.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:01:22 +0000
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
>Please provide further justification for your position. The mere statement of disagreement is not a technical argument. >Sooner or later we have to specify which constraints are part of the spec. This seems to be a good time. Absolutely. I was preparing this as part of an overall review of the latest spec, which I was intending to post to the mailing list prior to TPAC. I apologize for my tardiness in getting this out to the group, but I did not realize that we were addressing the finalization of the spec in a section-by-section fashion. I will get my comments on the constraints section itself out ASAP. > That's why I reposted it a week ago. On the webrtc list, which you are also on, it is 3 weeks old - again with no comments. I'm only an observer for the WebRTC WG, so I do not comment on active discussions in that particular mailing list (I realize that other observers do not restrict themselves in the same way). I interpreted Cullen's original request as an attempt to get consensus within the WebRTC WG on the state of constraints within the spec (in other words, is there consensus among WebRTC WG members companies that the constraints list meets all WebRTC use cases?). -Giri -----Original Message----- From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 7:35 AM To: public-media-capture@w3.org Subject: Re: Concluding initial list of constraints (was Proposal on initial list of constrains) On 10/29/2013 02:29 PM, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote: > Sorry, I don't agree with this assessment. Please keep the note as it stands. Please provide further justification for your position. The mere statement of disagreement is not a technical argument. Sooner or later we have to specify which constraints are part of the spec. This seems to be a good time. > > 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. That's why I reposted it a week ago. On the webrtc list, which you are also on, it is 3 weeks old - again with no comments. > > -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 >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 15:01:52 UTC