Not sure if I follow Peter.
If the 1.0 spec is not clear what the harm in clarifying here? Worst case
is that the CG has something we can run with in the near term and the WG
can reference that work when the debate arises there.
*Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> |
*Hookflash<http://hookflash.com/>* |
1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>wrote:
> If the 1.0 spec is ambiguous, we need to resolve it there. If we resolve
> it here independently and then it gets resolved there later in a different
> way, that would not be fun.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> [RR]
>>
>> I looked at this spec and that's where my ambiguity came from. I don't
>> think that spec defines all the behaviours to resolve the ambiguities. Do
>> you have another source?
>>
>> I was reading:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/
>>
>> [/RR]
>>
>> Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
>> April 23, 2014 at 6:17 PM
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> [RR] I'm fine with the rules so long as they are clear an unambiguous.
>>> Who would have the answers to clarify some of these ambiguous situations?
>>>
>>
>> To answer that, I would go read the latest spec.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
