Re: Accepting Audio WG proposals

Martin was the only one providing feedback on this call.

His feedback was in two parts:

* Pointing out that it is device, not track, capabilities that are 
proposed to be exposed via enumeratDevices
* The question if anyone is planning to implement

Regarding the first one: That is true, and perhaps we can find a better 
way to expose this (and Joe has asked for input). But we've seen no 
objection to the use case (allow the script to select or propose the 
most suitable devices based on their respective capabilities).

Regarding the second one: yes this is a valid question. And features 
that are not implemented may be removed at later stages in the document 
process.

But we think that we should move forward with these proposals and create 
pull requests for further review/feedback. Joe, is this something you 
can take on?

Stefan for the chairs


On 23/06/15 09:16, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> we've recently received two proposals from the Audio WG as a result of
> the Last Call (and the following discussions) of Media Capture and Streams:
>
> * Add a constraint/capability for channelCount [1]
>
> * Add MediaTrackCapabilities discovery via enumerateDevices() [2]
>
> There has been very little list traffic related to these proposals. We
> will consider the silence as an indication of that the Media Capture TF
> considers the proposals being reasonable, and ask for PR's for the spec,
> unless we hear anything else by Monday next week.
>
> Stefan for the chairs
>
> [1]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2015Jun/0031.html
>
> [2]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2015Jun/0034.html
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2015 10:06:34 UTC