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

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

From: Anton Vayvod <avayvod@google.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 01:41:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAOjek6pJfip2=R68r2krz60T5C4gjkHxmdXV6Qfm0U_6AAgAHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mlamouri@google.com>, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Cc: "public-secondscreen@w3.org" <public-secondscreen@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:11 AM Kostiainen, Anssi <
anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> 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?

Yes, I'm fine with it. Thanks Anssi!

> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> Thanks,
> -Anssi (WG Chair)
Received on Friday, 28 October 2016 01:42:28 UTC

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