- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:21:00 +0200
- To: public-webrtc-editors@w3.org
First off: I won't be there. Turns out I'm sitting on a plane while you're talking. Stuff happens. Sorry. Highest priority for the week: Getting out a new getusermedia draft, so that Dom can send out the Last Call responses we have prepared (the ones that are ready, that is). Media capture and streams ------------------------------------- Pull requests: - #171 referring to HTML 5.1 - suggest this is Good Enough now. - #181 Remove text about firing event handles - Adam, is it important enough that we should do this after #194 is done, but before the new editors' draft? - #194 Overconstrainederror - suggest we merge. Only Domenic is capable of reviewing this at the moment (just about). Issues: - #118 Practical algorithm - Cullen reopened it. I asked him to take it to the list. No action yet. - #127 lack of timeout - still icebox - #161 Remove direct assigment - see PR #171 - #162 MediaStreamError - see PR #194 - # 176 constrainable pattern shold pass an IDL validator - Adam? - #189 getUserMedia({}) should be a TypeError - #191 Support zoom - No - #192 Support setting focus - No - #193 Adaptive frame rate - #196 Spec not tamper proof - #197 Channel count - NOTE: IPR issue, specific proposal from non-WG-member. Suggest ask proposer to join (simplest). - #198 Capabilities discovery via EnumerateDevices() - as above. Webrtc-PC -------------- Pull requests: 11 Many of these have the problem of proposer not responding. - #29 mediadiscarded - #229 Removing optionality - #235 Modernize getStats - I think this is OK - #236 Replace operations array with chain - Adam? - #237 ReplaceTrack with open issue - #238 Use HTTPS - think we should merge this, or close and do search/replace (no response to whitespace complaint) - #239 tidy target - Adam/Dan, is this useful? - #240 Move certificate management section - sure, why not? - #241 Lots of goodies (DTLStransport, ICEtransport) - #242 Remove syntax error - dom is most often right - #243 Mark candidate property required - overlap with #229? Bugs: 32 We really need to define the icebox for non-1.0 items.... if we have time, should we instead discuss how to get 1.0 and "the next version" split? (Since I won't be there, leaving decision to my co-chairs) -- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 15:21:32 UTC