Dear IG Members. Following up your kind recommendations we have proposed a community group related to the Shared Motion proposal discussed in this thread. Please have a look a the charter and support its creation if you deem it relevant. Note particularly the section "Importance" in the charter, which is focused on use cases for the broadcast industry - and mentions some use cases already discussed in this IG. http://www.w3.org/community/blog/2015/02/03/proposed-group-multi-device-timing-community-group/ PS. We have not yet provided any outline of API's protocols etc, as requested earlier by Giuseppe, but intend to start this work once the CG has received necessary support. Best, Ingar and Njål 2015-01-23 10:01 GMT+01:00 Ingar Mæhlum Arntzen <ingar.arntzen@gmail.com>: > > Ah, sorry Guiseppe about the name blunder. > > Will get back to you on spec outlines. > > Ingar > > 2015-01-23 9:54 GMT+01:00 Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>: > >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Ingar Mæhlum Arntzen < >> ingar.arntzen@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Pascale >>> >>> >> Giuseppe ;) >> >> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> We will shortly go ahead and suggest a Community Group with goals >>> reflecting your recommendations here. >>> >>> We will get back to the IG for comments once we have a draft for the >>> charter. >>> >> >> Great, thanks. Please also keep this group informed from time to time on >> the progress made on the spec drafting. >> >> cheers, >> /g >> >> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Ingar >>> >>> >>> 2015-01-20 13:51 GMT+01:00 Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>: >>> >>>> Given that use cases and requirements have been discussed more then >>>> enough in this group, I would say go ahead drafting a initial proposal of >>>> such extension spec (to HTML5) would look like and we could gather feedback >>>> on that. >>>> >>>> For the first round of comments we probably don't need an accurate spec >>>> but something simpler which highlight the main concept of a "future" spec. >>>> >>>> I need to point out that this group is not chartered to work on >>>> technical specifications, so I think starting a CG could be the best option >>>> to move this forward, unless other people have a better suggestions. >>>> >>>> As you know, CG don't need any official approval, so you can just go >>>> ahead and create one, and inform this group (and others) about it so that >>>> anyone interested can join. >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> /g >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2015 10:50:30 UTC