W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > August 2014

Re: [depth] New Editor's Draft for review, FPWD schedule

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:36:40 +0000
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>, Benjamin Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
CC: "Hu, Ningxin" <ningxin.hu@intel.com>, Rob Manson <roBman@buildAR.com>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1D055D8A@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 28/08/14 13:06, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 08/28/2014 09:57 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The editors updated the Media Capture Depth Stream Extensions draft as per the feedback received from the group (thanks!). The summary of changes:
>>
>> * define DepthData interface (it was suggested we should not reuse ImageData for depth)
>> * in CanvasRenderingContext2D, add pixel manipulation constructors and methods that create, and interact with, the DepthData objects
>> * define CameraParameters interface, note an issue with it
>> * define Canvas Depth ArrayBuffer
>>
>> The updated living document with the above changes is at:
>>
>>     http://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-depth/
>>
>> And here is the diff:
>>
>>     https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-depth/commit/0faa1ee38f8ca06170687b66dcd7ed5e3e65bfbb
>>
>> The editors suggest that the next step for the group would be to get the technical scope of the spec nailed down (we think we’re close) so that we could schedule the FPWD publication.
>>
>> Chairs - do you have suggestions for the FPWD timing that would work for the group the best? For example, are you expecting to publish other TF deliverables before TPAC? We may want to try to publish at the same time to minimize the process-related overhead for the chairs and the team.
>
> Speaking for myself....
>
> FPWD is usually not a high overhead process. I think we should do this
> whenever the editors feel that the draft is reasonably readable - my
> quick glance says that it looks ready now.
>
> Other docs go out as editors' drafts whenever we feel like it, and
> pushes to working drafts are few and far between; we expect a working
> draft to go out when we last-call getusermedia, of course.
>
> I wouldn't bother too much about the timing; let's push it out when it
> looks ready.

I was about to send a mail with the same message, so +1 from me.

>
>>
>> All - please review updated the Editor’s Draft. All comments and suggestions welcome!
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Anssi (on behalf of the editors)
>>
>>
>
>
>


Received on Thursday, 28 August 2014 11:37:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:29 UTC