There has been consensus at previous meetings that we need to do this, so I don't think this rule is operative. The relevant question is what the semantics of the accessors should be, but I don't see how a PR elucidates that better than this issue. -Ekr On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote: > I believe the rule was that we have to have a PR for things we want in. > That's why I've been making a lot of PRs :). I think it would be good to > follow our rule in this case. It would help make the discussion more > concrete. > > > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > >> We seem to be having some trouble converging on which accessors >> we need. See: >> >> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/16 >> >> Can we please have this on the agenda for the interim? >> >> -Ekr >> >> >Received on Monday, 24 August 2015 20:26:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:08 UTC