Re: Missing definitions for parameters in MediaTrackCapabilties/MediaTrackConstraints?

I tend to agree with Cullen. We've got plenty of experience with registries
for this
and I don't see any reason to deviate from this successful practice.
-Ekr


On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:

>
> > On Apr 20, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 20 April 2015 at 05:40, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
> wrote:
> >> There's more text on what they mean in section 14.1, "Track
> >> Constrainable Property Registration".
> >
> >
> > Can we remove the registry?  Is there any reason that we can't simply
> > maintain the document with the definitions of the things we are using?
>
> I view the registry as a simple way to do exactly that. Imagine a company
> doing a webrtc based internet doorbell. They are effectively building a
> single purpose browser - they are not one of the big browser vendors - and
> they might be doing standardizes at some other SDO such as OIC. This small
> company, or another SDO,  needs a clear way to be able to reserve a name to
> use. The registry also provide people a pointer to some documentation that
> might help in interoperable reuse of new paramaters.
>
> Just edit the live document will be fine for mozilla and google but far
> less likely to work for people who are not long term contributors to that
> the WG. Many people have found it outrageously frustrating to try and get
> something added to the whatWG specs for example. IANA will execute whatever
> rules we give them for keeping the a document with all the things that we
> are using and they will continue to do it over long periods of time.
>
> When we just have a document, it often becomes a huge pain over time. The
> bonjour labels are a great example of something that took a lot of work to
> get moved to IANA from a document on the web.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>