Re: Adding "Media Capture Depth Stream Extensions" as TF deliverable

I support this work but I would much rather see this done in a WG instead of a TF. The approval processes for documents in TF is very messy and effectively needs to be approved by both the WG. Unless there is a really good reason to do it in a TF instead of of a WG, a WG is better. I realize that it got proposed to this TF just because this is where GUM is but is there any good reason it could not be done in a WG ?


On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> a group of people have been working on depth track extensions to
> MediaStreams after a short discussion at last year's TPAC.
> 
> Use cases and requirements are listed at [1], and there is an initial
> Editor's draft available [2].
> 
> Our plan is to make this draft a deliverable of this TF (the formal
> decision will be when making it a FPWD). Initial editors: Anssi
> Kostiainen and Ningxin Hu.
> 
> Chairs
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Media_Capture_Depth_Stream_Extension
> [2] https://w3c.github.io/mediacapture-depth/
> 
>

Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 12:39:47 UTC