- From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:58:26 -0700
- To: Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJrXDUFvwCAap5ein6jrhJbpPRiCU8U0U2FvvZMPdxT-CpMzqw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK < stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: > We welcome new proposals and ideas to be made and discussed, and think > this WG is the right place to do so. > > However, as outlined already last year, we think the WG should focus on > finalizing the current API draft (to a LC status) before starting a new > public/official document describing a new API. We think it has advanced > far already, there are working implementations and it is used by > application developers. Abandoning it, or slowing it down, now would be a > bad idea. > > Discussing different use cases that are hard to do with the present API, > and discussing approaches and ideas that would make those use cases easier > to achieve, would probably be an excellent exercise in distilling out the > main approach for a new API (or future API extensions). We welcome such > discussions. > > In discussing, we should distinguish carefully between three categories of > proposals: > > - those that would remove functionality that present applications depend > on, and make it hard or impossible for those applications to go on working > - those that move functionality between Javascript and the browser, > possibly requiring simple adaptation libraries to maintain the > functionality applications are currently using > - those that extend the current functionality, allowing current > applications to go on working. > > While respecting the need to keep APIs as clean and uncluttered as > possible, it should be obvious which kinds of changes require the more > rigorous justification. > > The list is open for the discussions. > Stefan, I think it's great that the chairs are explicitly allowing discussion. However, I admit I'm a bit confused about what is encouraged and what is discouraged here. So, can you confirm a few things just so I don't misunderstand? - Discussion for use cases for "2.0": encouraged - A new public/official document: discouraged until "1.0" is at least LC - Discussion/proposals for what the "2.0" would look like: ???? For example, is my NoPlan JS API proposal (which is 3 method additions, no removals, or of the third type of change you mentioned) encouraged or discouraged until 1.0 is at least LC? If you're requesting that I wait to discuss it further publicly, I can wait. I just want to be clear that's what you want. Thanks again for making things clear and supporting the web developers and their input. > > Stefan for the chairs > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2013 00:59:33 UTC