I'm not sure I have guidance on how y'all can get more OT usage and
feedback. It seems to me that y'all are best positioned to assess the
developer need and reach out to them to increase engagement. Devrel folks
may be able to help.
Without expectation for further engagement, I don't think it m
Hi Joe,
I'm really sorry for the delay in my reply!
These changes will be shipped in Chrome 98.
Best regards,
Nidhi
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 5:14 AM Joe Medley wrote:
> In which version is this shipping?
> Joe Medley | Technical Writer, Chrome DevRel | jmed...@google.com |
> 816-678-7195
> *If
LGTM3 for step 1.
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 6:11 AM Mike Taylor wrote:
> LGTM2 for step 1.
>
> On 12/6/21 5:31 AM, Titouan Rigoudy wrote:
>
> *assuming I get 2 more LGTMs, that is.
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:31 AM Titouan Rigoudy
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks! I'll come back for further discussion with
It seems like we don't have a strong push towards either the
MediaCapabilities or the Codec Capabilities solution in the issue on the
sender side (https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-svc/issues/49). This is bad for
quick resolution.
In the interest of getting the uncontroversial parts shipped - what wou
To circle back - last week we (myself + some other privacy/anti-covert
tracking reviewers) met with some folks working on this feature. We
ended up with an AI for Hongchan to land metrics on the values that
getOutputTimestamp would produce (if called, when a new AudioContext is
created, IIRC) a
LGTM2 for step 1.
On 12/6/21 5:31 AM, Titouan Rigoudy wrote:
*assuming I get 2 more LGTMs, that is.
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:31 AM Titouan Rigoudy
wrote:
Thanks! I'll come back for further discussion with UKM data in hand.
Cheers,
Titouan
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:58 AM Y
*assuming I get 2 more LGTMs, that is.
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:31 AM Titouan Rigoudy wrote:
> Thanks! I'll come back for further discussion with UKM data in hand.
>
> Cheers,
> Titouan
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:58 AM Yoav Weiss wrote:
>
>> I agree UKM analysis should not block step 1, as
Thanks! I'll come back for further discussion with UKM data in hand.
Cheers,
Titouan
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:58 AM Yoav Weiss wrote:
> I agree UKM analysis should not block step 1, as it holds little risk.
> (There's still some risks that servers will choke in the face of
> preflights, but th
I agree UKM analysis should not block step 1, as it holds little risk.
(There's still some risks that servers will choke in the face of
preflights, but that seems minor compared to the enforcement risk)
Therefore,* LGTM1 for step 1* (preflights with no enforcement), but not
further (yet). Please c
Title: Blink bug summary
Blink bug status as of 2021-12-06
Component
Open
Slow Triage
Pri-0/1
⭐
No owner
Oldest
Whole Blink16,522(+75)69,003(+330)1,021(-11)1,081(-1)319Jan 2015
Uncategorized6(-11)9(-12)01(-7)1Dec 2021
Blink>Accessibility340(-8)1,274(+63)2(-3)39(-6)9Jul 2019
Blink>Animat
10 matches
Mail list logo
