Just to keep people updated... we're pursuing two organization-level efforts: - Establishing the groundwork for an IETF working group. This will likely be a BOF at the IETF meeting in Prague in March, and we hope to have approval for it shortly afterwards. - Doing the same thing for a W3C working group. Timeline less certain - we're still figuring this out, but have had great help from our friends at W3C. In both cases, we hope to have charters for public discussion by the end of this year. Harald
we probably want an interest group at the w3c, while we work out what needs to happen. I would hope that most of the work would be in existing WGs. There is a lower bar to setting up an IG. On Dec 2, 2010, at 6:57 , Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Just to keep people updated... we're pursuing two organization-level efforts: - Establishing the groundwork for an IETF working group. This will likely be a BOF at the IETF meeting in Prague in March, and we hope to have approval for it shortly afterwards. - Doing the same thing for a W3C working group. Timeline less certain - we're still figuring this out, but have had great help from our friends at W3C.
In both cases, we hope to have charters for public discussion by the end of this year.
Harald
_______________________________________________ RTC-Web mailing list RTC-Web@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
On Dec 2, 2010, at 19:15 , David Singer wrote:
we probably want an interest group at the w3c, while we work out what needs to happen. I would hope that most of the work would be in existing WGs. There is a lower bar to setting up an IG.
If the deliverables are clear and sufficiently agreed upon, I would think that going straight to a WG would be better than waiting in an IG beforehand. I generally like the idea of doing new work in existing WGs where possible, it's less overhead (though I wouldn't make that a strong rule). Do you have a specific group in mind that you would see this fit well into? -- Robin Berjon robineko — hired gun, higher standards http://robineko.com/
If we can envisage a separate specification, and be clear about it, and when it will deliver, and so on, then we could go straight to the WG, for sure. I would expect changes to (maybe) HTML, perhaps CSS, scripting/DOM, Device Access... you're a W3C old-hand. do you think we could get a WG charter defined and approved, and if so, want to try drafting it? On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:20 , Robin Berjon wrote:
On Dec 2, 2010, at 19:15 , David Singer wrote:
we probably want an interest group at the w3c, while we work out what needs to happen. I would hope that most of the work would be in existing WGs. There is a lower bar to setting up an IG.
If the deliverables are clear and sufficiently agreed upon, I would think that going straight to a WG would be better than waiting in an IG beforehand. I generally like the idea of doing new work in existing WGs where possible, it's less overhead (though I wouldn't make that a strong rule). Do you have a specific group in mind that you would see this fit well into?
-- Robin Berjon robineko — hired gun, higher standards http://robineko.com/
David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
On Dec 2, 2010, at 19:35 , David Singer wrote:
If we can envisage a separate specification, and be clear about it, and when it will deliver, and so on, then we could go straight to the WG, for sure.
Right. My concern with starting with an IG is that I think that people here have a reasonably good idea of what they want to do (I think), so it has a risk of largely being make-work (or worse, scope creep :).
I would expect changes to (maybe) HTML, perhaps CSS, scripting/DOM, Device Access...
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out if this needs a new group, or if it would work well inside DAP (or a re-engineered DAP) given that it already handles AV device access and has a very similar topic on its charter already. I wonder if anyone else here has an opinion?
you're a W3C old-hand. do you think we could get a WG charter defined and approved, and if so, want to try drafting it?
Dom's already on it — that's why I'm asking these questions, any answer is useful input. -- Robin Berjon robineko — hired gun, higher standards http://robineko.com/
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
- Doing the same thing for a W3C working group. Timeline less certain - we're still figuring this out, but have had great help from our friends at W3C.
No need for a W3C group, since the only W3C-relevant work here is a minor extension to HTML, which can be done in either the HTML WG or the WHATWG (or both). Indeed, the bulk of the work is already done and is just waiting on someone to write the spec I mentioned a while back: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtc-web/2010-October/000087.html -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
participants (4)
-
David Singer -
Harald Alvestrand -
Ian Hickson -
Robin Berjon