- From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 19:48:24 -0400
- To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- Cc: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Peter, In the pull request can you please put it back to non-required for now so we can land the main text, and then we'll take a second pass later at refining the text, while making sure it fits the whole spec? I'm a bit concerned that the wording change from "non-required" to "ideal" might have repercussions elsewhere in the doc. It may be okay, but I definitely agree with all the other changes and would like to get them into the doc. -- dan On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Peter Thatcher wrote: > I've addressed all the issues brought up in github, and changed the > formula. The only nit I didn't change was the whole "all numeric > constraints" thing, since I still wasn't sure what text to use. > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote: >> On 9/17/14 11:34 AM, Peter Thatcher wrote: >>> >>> We could just say "numeric constraints" (remove the word "all") and >>> then add a sentence explicitly saying "future constraints may define >>> distance formulas other than these" >> >> >> No please don't change the definition, I actually liked it. :-) My concern >> was just with the wording. How about removing the examples in parenthesis, >> or perhaps put "etc." at the end? Overall just a nit. >> >>> So we'd need to tweak it a bit: >>> >>> (actual == ideal) ? 0 : |(actual - ideal)|/max(|ideal|,|actual|) >> >> >> Sounds great! >> >> .: Jan-Ivar :. >> >
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2014 23:48:56 UTC