Re: Media Capture Task Force potential new work items

On 12/06/15 15:17, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:
> Hi Dom, Chairs,
>
>> On 12 Jun 2015, at 14:56, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/06/2015 13:27, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:
>>> To add to that Media Capture TF list, I think there might also
>>> be some new work items that could fit into the TF scope and
>>> benefit from F2F discussion. With that, I agree it makes sense to
>>> look at the split closer to the meeting.
>>>
>>> A concrete example of potential new work items: the VideoWorker
>>> and ImageBitmap extensions proposals by Mozilla [2] (as a
>>> response to [3]) received positive signals from group
>>> participants. We, the Depth Stream Extensions editors, have
>>> looked at these proposals in more detail and think these APIs
>>> would fit in nicely from the technical perspective.
>>
>> I think these items could probably fit under the scope of the task
>> force; the Chairs would have indicate whether they agree and more
>> importantly, whether they think this task force has the appropriate
>> work force and momentum for it.
>>
>> An alternative would be to look at ongoing discussions around the
>> chartering of Media Working Group:
>> https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/14
>> http://github.adrianba.net/webstandards/timed-media-wg.htm
>>
>> It is of course far from being confirmed at this point, but my
>> guess is that this new group would be a better fit to standardize
>> what sound like important new primitives in the media space.
>
> Thanks for the pointers. I had the proposed HTML split on the back of
> my mind, but thought it might conflate the issue.
>
> My expectation is that new proposals that could be in scope for this
> TF should be discussed in here for the time being as there's no
> consensus on the HTML split and the creation of the Media WG yet
> AFAIK.

I agree to this. But before we consider adopting new documents for e.g. 
VideoWorker or ImageBitmap extensions I'd like to see commitment from 
those implementing and experimenting. If they say "we think we're on to 
something here, and we think it should be standardized" we consider 
doing that. My understanding is that we are not at that stage yet (but 
as already said: discussion belongs here).

>
> If there will be a new WG in the future that would be a better fit,
> then my expectation is that there would also be a migration path from
> this TF to that WG so that the work could get started in the TF and
> migrated to the WG if that is seen as the preferred option.
>
> Dom, Chairs - please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would also expect a migration path.

>
> Thanks,
>
> -Anssi
>
> [2]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2015Apr/0024.html
>
>
[3] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2015Apr/0007.html
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2015 11:46:47 UTC