- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:22:10 +0200
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
The proposed changes are accepted, the editors should update the document accordingly. Chairs On 10/18/2011 02:40 PM, Francois Daoust wrote: > Hi Adam, everyone, > > On 10/17/2011 06:42 PM, Adam Bergkvist wrote: >> The editor team put up a new version of the editor draft at >> >> http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc-20111017.html > > Thanks. Note a minor typo: in the header section, there is a missing "</a>" at the end of the link to the previous version that makes the link span over the list of editors. > > >> Changes: > [...] >> * Added abstract. > > The term "WEBRTC effort" is undefined. I take it to mean the combination of WebRTC and RTCWEB groups, but this is not self-evident. Harald defines the "RTCWEB/WEBRTC effort" in section 2.2 of the Overview draft: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-02#section-2.2 > ... but the abstract should read without requiring external reading. > > I propose two editorial changes to clarify: > > 1. I think the abstract is more to describe the specification than the underlying effort in any case, so I propose to drop the first sentence, and reformulate a bit the second sentence as: > "This document defines a set of APIs that allow local media, including audio and video, to be requested from a platform, media to be sent over the network to another browser or device implementing the appropriate set of real-time protocols, and media received from another browser or device to be processed and displayed locally." > > > 2. I would then make an explicit reference to the IETF RTCWEB group at the end of the "Introduction" section with something like: > "This specification is being developed in conjunction with a protocol specification developed by the IETF RTCWEB group [RTCWEB]." > > I think the abstract should be updated before publication as first public working draft because that's the first (and sometimes only!) thing people will see. > > Thanks, > Francois. > >
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 13:22:36 UTC