W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2015

Re: Agenda request: accessors for pending/current descriptions

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:25:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNb26Gw3AAgx5MmM2PS5W-UToEjsG56JrWHgdmr8ZU_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
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 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:45 UTC