W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-secondscreen@w3.org > October 2016

Re: Concerns about requesting a TAG review for Remote Playback API

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:35:05 +0200
To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, Anton Vayvod <avayvod@google.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mlamouri@google.com>
Cc: "public-secondscreen@w3.org" <public-secondscreen@w3.org>
Message-ID: <419116d6-750e-c3a1-6d46-9e3e5297fc9a@w3.org>
Anssi, Anton,

On 27/10/2016 15:11, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:
> Hi Anton, Francois, All,
>> On 27 Oct 2016, at 00:11, Anton Vayvod <avayvod@google.com> wrote:
>> The Remote Playback API implementation in Chromium is nearing a milestone where we would like to ship the API enabled by default.
>> The Chrome Web platform team usually wants to see a TAG review of the spec.
>> If there're no concerns voiced here, I'd like to request the TAG group to review the RemotePlayback API.
>> If you want me to highlight some issues specifically, please, let me know.
> I suggest we publish a new Working Draft before we do the wide review, so that people have a stable snapshot to look at. The spec seems ready for a new WD after some SoTD adjustments (below).
> Anton - would you be fine with us staging the current ED for WD publication now?
> It would be good to update the SoTD section, clarify the "This document is a work in progress and is subject to change" note to better reflect reality knowing implementations are coming together. Also, note the status of existing issues. My assessment says the remaining open issues are considered minor, except issue #41 that suggests extensions to HTMLMediaElement and HTMLVideoElement interfaces; would be good to note this explicitly to attract further feedback and suggestions during wide review. Let me know if you feel the same.
> The reason for updating SoTD is simply to make it easier for people outside this group reading the wide review spec to be informed of the stability and completeness of the spec, and give better feedback.
> Francois - could you update the SoTD to match the wide review expectations? After that's done I'll initiate WD publication process.

I'll do that.

> Also, I'd be happy if you Francois could submit the wide review request for this API to appropriate WGs and horizontal group after we've published the new WD. I think we should include in the review request the same groups we did include for the Presentation API.

OK, we should probably assess privacy and security implications, typically using the self-evaluation questionnaires, before getting in touch with privacy and security groups.

Also, note the APA working group already initiated a review on their side in July-August which concluded with "no issues":

We will probably want to reach out to the Web Platform WG for review as well, but it may be worth waiting until we have made progress on #41, which touches on media algorithms.

> All - please let us know by 2 November if you feel the spec should not advance to wide review, and please include your reasons. Silence is considered consent. We'll try to publish a new WD on 3 November followed by a wide review request soon after.

That's fine with me.

Received on Thursday, 27 October 2016 14:35:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:19:01 UTC