Last Call comments on Media Capture and Streams

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Last Call comments on Media Capture and Streams

Dominique Hazael-Massieux-2
Hi Anne,

I believe that all the comments you raised during the Last Call review
of Media Capture and Streams have now been addressed:
https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/158
https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/159
https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/160
https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/161
https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/162
https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/163

Can you indicate whether you're satisfied with how they have been addressed?

Thanks!

Dom

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last Call comments on Media Capture and Streams

Anne van Kesteren-4
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <[hidden email]> wrote:
> https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/162

I don't see how this was addressed.


> Can you indicate whether you're satisfied with how they have been addressed?

In addition to the above, I filed

  https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/232
  https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/233

regarding changes that do not seem entirely accurate. A lot of the
language in the draft though does not seem entirely up to par with
best practices. Not entirely sure how to propose fixing that though.


--
https://annevankesteren.nl/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last Call comments on Media Capture and Streams

Dominique Hazael-Massieux-2
On 19/08/2015 10:16, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/162
>
> I don't see how this was addressed.

I see you followed up on github, thanks!

>> Can you indicate whether you're satisfied with how they have been addressed?
>
> In addition to the above, I filed
>
>    https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/232
>    https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/233
>
> regarding changes that do not seem entirely accurate. A lot of the
> language in the draft though does not seem entirely up to par with
> best practices. Not entirely sure how to propose fixing that though.

Can you maybe list the most important best practices the draft fails to
follow and I could then have a go at identifying the failures and/or
suggesting patches?

Dom

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last Call comments on Media Capture and Streams

Anne van Kesteren-4
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Can you maybe list the most important best practices the draft fails to
> follow and I could then have a go at identifying the failures and/or
> suggesting patches?

It's mostly that a lot of the language defining class members is
rather inconsistent and sloppy. And there's no clear separation
between API and model. E.g., the description for the label property
has suggestions for what a user agent can do with labels, while it
should just describe the getter.

The model section is marked non-normative which seems somewhat
suspect, can it be removed and you can still implement the API without
issue? The words used in the model section are again rather sloppy,
when you talk about a model there's no more "tags" involved. That's
markup. I dunno, there's lot's of stuff like that.


--
https://annevankesteren.nl/