RE: Locus of API discussion

I was simply referring to the recent past, wherein quite a number of people who feel strongly that the API should allow the developer to directly manipulate what the browser is doing also feel that they are going unheard. I am aware of which parts of the Microsoft proposal were and were not incorporated in the specification nearly a year ago now... but until recently, there hadn't appeared to be anyone else with similar reservations.

Matthew Kaufman

________________________________________
From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) [fluffy@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:54 PM
To: Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
Cc: cowwoc; Ted Hardie; public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Locus of API discussion

On Jul 17, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> wrote:

>
> From: cowwoc [mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org]:
>
>       We are in agreement over moving all discussion to a single mailing list.
>
>          I simply meant that the spec editors and browser vendors can use the fact that all discussion has been removed from rtcweb
>       as an easy way to ignore the discussion altogether... and that's something I'd like to avoid.
>
> Oh, you'll note that the spec editors and chairs are already ignoring most of what the application developer community has said about the current specification, so you shouldn't notice much of a change.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
>

Mathew this is simply not true. Thought most the people in the WG did not want to go with the Microsoft proposal, the editors, chairs, and WG have been very responsive to feedback from the application developer community. I view your constant claiming this is not true as highly unprofessional.

I realize most the people in the WG rejected your proposal but they have incorporated many other proposal from application developers.

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 05:03:52 UTC