Re: CfC: Publication of two Presentation API Reports

> On Jul 8, 2014, at 3:46 AM, "Rottsches, Dominik" <dominik.rottsches@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
>> IIUC, you've undated the draft report with material from the Wiki. But this material was still the subject of some debate with at least one major open issue. What promoted the move to CfC before closing the discussion on the wiki proposal ?
>
> Wayne & Francois may correct me if I am wrong, but the scope of consensus in this case is for this report to be the final report of the community group, and as such a snapshot of our work. This is not identical to the specification itself being in any way final. We’re taking a snapshot of our work, and provide this as input to the AC's review of our plans to become a working group.
>
>> At least the issue should be clearly described in the report. (I'm referring here to the inability of the API proposed to convey to the page whether there are one or more *suitable* displays available - where suitable means they might actually be able to render the intended content. With the API as is, the use will be presented with displays even in cases where the UA and site together could easily determine that the rendering will fail).
>
> I am aware this issue may not have been reached closure yet, despite the fact that we’ve exchanged a number of arguments pro and con this idea. And the debate may continue. What we’re proposing here is: Let’s use this final report as a snapshot of the work that the community group has been doing - move on to the working group, and evolve the specification - which may include addressing the issue you raise.
>
> Does that sound okay? If not, please let us know before Friday - otherwise I consider you’re okay with moving forward.

If it's to be a snapshot of the work, then it should clearly describe
the open issue.

...Mark
>
> Dominik
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 13:46:56 UTC