- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 16:03:32 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>, public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
Hi Anne, On 07/07/2015 15:59, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:48 PM, <dom@w3.org> wrote: >> Please review it carefully [...] >> >> Your comment on enumerateDevices(): >>> == enumerateDevices should be getAll() to match other APIs == >>> ```mediaDevices.getAll()``` is pretty clear and matches other APIs >>> like the Cache API in SW. >> >> Working Group Resolution (LC-3010): >> The Working Group does not contemplate any change based on this comment. > > Did the Working Group even review the comment carefully? These kind of > templated non-responses kill public contributions and participation > (or in this case contributions from engineers with lots of experience > in API design). I agree the response could have been better worded; but note that the issue discussion happened on github with some more details: https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/157 (I've actually tried to avoid sending responses to github issues via our last call comments tracker tool, but obviously failed in this case) Dom
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:04:11 UTC