Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: OpusEncoderConfig `signal` and `application` parameters

2024-04-10 Thread Alex Russell
LGTM3 On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 8:51:54 AM UTC-7 Daniel Bratell wrote: > LGTM2 > > /Daniel > On 2024-04-08 17:35, Mike Taylor wrote: > > LGTM1 > On 4/4/24 2:29 PM, 'Thomas Guilbert' via blink-dev wrote: > > The last launch gate approval came in today. > > Thanks! > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: OpusEncoderConfig `signal` and `application` parameters

2024-04-10 Thread Daniel Bratell
LGTM2 /Daniel On 2024-04-08 17:35, Mike Taylor wrote: LGTM1 On 4/4/24 2:29 PM, 'Thomas Guilbert' via blink-dev wrote: The last launch gate approval came in today. Thanks! On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 11:49 AM Thomas Guilbert wrote: I agree that this would have been a viable solution,

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: OpusEncoderConfig `signal` and `application` parameters

2024-04-08 Thread Mike Taylor
LGTM1 On 4/4/24 2:29 PM, 'Thomas Guilbert' via blink-dev wrote: The last launch gate approval came in today. Thanks! On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 11:49 AM Thomas Guilbert wrote: I agree that this would have been a viable solution, and this was considered and discussed with the spec

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: OpusEncoderConfig `signal` and `application` parameters

2024-04-04 Thread 'Thomas Guilbert' via blink-dev
The last launch gate approval came in today. Thanks! On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 11:49 AM Thomas Guilbert wrote: > I agree that this would have been a viable solution, and this was > considered and discussed with the spec editors too [1]. These Opus flags > were originally supposed to be

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: OpusEncoderConfig `signal` and `application` parameters

2024-04-03 Thread 'Thomas Guilbert' via blink-dev
I agree that this would have been a viable solution, and this was considered and discussed with the spec editors too [1]. These Opus flags were originally supposed to be contentHint, but ultimately it would have only ever been useful for Opus, so it was decided to keep it in the Opus config. [1]

Re: [blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: OpusEncoderConfig `signal` and `application` parameters

2024-04-03 Thread Daniel Bratell
This may be a bit of a tangent, but we had a discussion about AV1-only encoder configuration a while back[1][2]. In the end they elected to have a top level dictionary where some encoding configuration ended up. I wonder if there is anything to learn from that process and their choices or if

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: OpusEncoderConfig `signal` and `application` parameters

2024-03-28 Thread Yoav Weiss (@Shopify)
Thanks! On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:41 PM Thomas Guilbert wrote: > I've flipped all the reviews and will update this thread when they are all > completed. > > Thanks! > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 8:25 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < > yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Hey! Can you flip on the

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: OpusEncoderConfig `signal` and `application` parameters

2024-03-27 Thread Thomas Guilbert
I've flipped all the reviews and will update this thread when they are all completed. Thanks! On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 8:25 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > Hey! Can you flip on the various reviews (privacy, enterprise, etc) in the > chromestatus entry? > > On Tuesday,

[blink-dev] Re: Intent to Implement and Ship: OpusEncoderConfig `signal` and `application` parameters

2024-03-27 Thread Yoav Weiss (@Shopify)
Hey! Can you flip on the various reviews (privacy, enterprise, etc) in the chromestatus entry? On Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 11:29:53 PM UTC+1 Thomas Guilbert wrote: > Contact emailstguilb...@chromium.org > > ExplainerNone > > Specification >