W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Material for discussing scoping for version one

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:16:16 +0100
Message-ID: <52B02470.1090906@alvestrand.no>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 12/16/2013 08:36 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> On 16/12/13 19:04, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2013 04:56 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 16, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK
>>>>> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <WebRTC 1.0 In%2FOut - W3C.pdf>
>>>>> This list might be ok as the start of TODO list of things we still need to
>>>>> resolve but the idea that default decision is "Ignore unknown mandatory
>>>>> constraints" is something that we could decide if we we do it now or later
>>>>> makes no sense. That is something we need to decide before we get the 1.0
>>>>> spec out.
>>>> Agreed. If you look carefully in the "proposed decision" column, that
>>>> particular row has "no" as the proposed decision.
>>>> In general, the proposed decisions are "Yes" (do it before LC), "Not in 1.0"
>>>> (we may or may not do it later) and "No" (we won't do it, and recommend that
>>>> the question not be revisited either).
>>> Are the contents of this column actually the chair's proposal for what
>>> we should do? Just a placeholder? I worked on this document, but
>>> they're certainly don't match my opinion.
>> See it as a signal that we should be careful with what we say should be
>> included in 1.0 to be able to get done in a reasonable time. It does not
>> reflect my wish either (I have a few things I'd really like to see), but
>> I guess we will all need to compromise.
> Hmm... I feel like this is a little fixated on timeline. I would rather
> ask what's needed to have something that's viable.

It seems that people think what's implemented now is "viable" for a lot 
of applications (even thouhgh many find it painful to use).
So any new features have to be justified as to why they make the 
platform more viable.
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 10:16:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:37 UTC