You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Section on purpose may be a bit more elaborative. "expected interoperability" should not be the only purpose, the spec should also attempt to improve quality/playback and stability, and perhaps load on servers. This is what would make it interesting for people to consider this work.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Well, DASH-IF publishes implementation guidelines for interoperability, first and foremost. I believe this has always been the case and is unlikely to change. Interoperability is the core reason the organization even exists.
When other beneficial traits come along for the ride with interoperability guidelines, that's nice, but I think any broadening of the agenda is a bigger topic than suitable for handling in the context of the timing model. Perhaps you would like to put forward the case for scope expansion in the main IOP group discussions? I will move this issue from the timing model tracker to the main IOP tracker so it can be more visible for consideration by the wider audience.
sandersaares
transferred this issue from Dash-Industry-Forum/Guidelines-TimingModel
Dec 4, 2019
Section on purpose may be a bit more elaborative. "expected interoperability" should not be the only purpose, the spec should also attempt to improve quality/playback and stability, and perhaps load on servers. This is what would make it interesting for people to consider this work.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: