- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:17:03 +0000
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- CC: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Stefan Håkansson <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 25 Jun 2014, at 12:48, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote: > Now, should the process overheads become too costly, we could revisit > that decision; but I would rather we make the overhead less costly :) We will continue to work in this TF and revisit the decision if the overhead becomes an issue. Given this is an extension to the gUM spec, keeping both under the same roof makes practical work easier which in my opinion outweighs potential process hurdles of a TF. Should the gUM spec move into a WG in a future, then this extensions should follow. But I think that was not suggested, and I’m not aware of such plans. We can try tagging related messages sent to this list with [mediacapture-depth] or [depth] to ease filtering. Thanks, -Anssi
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 13:19:05 UTC