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

On 06/20/2014 02:39 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
> 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 ?

I don't think it's much of a difference. It seems strange to declare 
this to be in DAP's scope, given that the TF is present and active, and 
it's clearly not in scope for WEBRTC.

>
>
> 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 14:26:09 UTC