Hi Feras/Takeshi,
thanks for proactively dealing with all our feedback 8)
I'll definitely see if there's any further feedback on the updated spec
from the people that participated at the FOMS session.
And I'd also be happy to do the same with the Media Capture and Streams
TF/WG too as this relates directly to the post-processing use cases I'm
particularly interested in.
roBman
On 5/12/13 8:04 AM, Feras Moussa wrote:
Thanks Art.
We've also had Rob (cc'd) interested from the FOMS (Open Media Standards)
group. I'll follow up with Rob for further feedback from that group.
In the spec, we tried to capture all the various areas we think this spec can
affect - this is the stream consumers/producers section
(http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm#producers-consumers)
In addition to the ones you've outlined,the one that comes to mind from the
list in the spec would be the web-crypto group.
-Feras
----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:57:50 -0500
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Request for feedback: Streams API
Thanks for the update Feras.
Re getting `wide review` of the latest [ED], which groups, lists and
individuals should be asked to review the spec?
In IRC just now, jgraham mentioned TC39, WHATWG and Domenic. Would
someone please ask these two groups to review the latest ED?
Aymeric - would you please ask the WebRTC list(s) to review the latest
ED or provide the list name(s) and I'll ask them.
-Thanks, ArtB
[ED] <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm>
On 12/4/13 11:27 AM, ext Feras Moussa wrote:
The editors of the Streams API have reached a milestone where we feel
many of the major issues that have been identified thus far are now
resolved and incorporated in the editors draft.
The editors draft [1] has been heavily updated and reviewed the past
few weeks to address all concerns raised, including:
1. Separation into two distinct types -ReadableByteStream and
WritableByteStream
2. Explicit support for back pressure management
3. Improvements to help with pipe( ) and flow-control management
4. Updated spec text and diagrams for further clarifications
There are still a set of bugs being tracked in bugzilla. We would like
others to please review the updated proposal, and provide any feedback
they may have (or file bugs).
Thanks.
-Feras
[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm
