Re: ACTION-207: Poll regarding the fact that RTSP will be discussed in a separate note from Silvia Pfeiffer on 2010-12-15 (public-media-fragment@w3.org from December 2010)

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:35:08 +1100
To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimFsebkkDeLqj5=HLdVCVzmNpfOPq-sNU-JRbnt@mail.gmail.com>

2010/12/16 Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>:
> Hi Silvia,
>
>> Hmm, I'm pretty sure I clicked "no" and I am still calculated as
>> "yes". What is going on?
>
> Your vote is in the "no" column. Davy's vote is in the "yes".
> See: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/42785/rtsp-processing/results

OK, that was so a browser cache issue, since I first got yes and no
mixed up and had to recast my vote. Sorry.


> For all:
>  - yes MEANS RTSP goes in a *different* document, that will be a WG Note
> (not a recommendation)
>  - no MEANS RTSP goes in the *main* recommendation track document, but
> requires to have another LCWD, implementations and test cases to remain in
> the final rec.

Yes, that was slightly confusing.

Cheers,
Silvia.

Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2010 13:36:00 UTC