Closed cynthia closed 6 years ago
Can take it out entirely and into a new document - just didn't want to have to update links on the code, examples etc. WDYT?
Sounds good to me. I can help with some of the work if needed.
What would you say if I put it in an informative Annex? That'd make it unnecessary to update the links and it'd be pro-forma.
(Reposting, previous post was from the wrong account)
I don't think you'd be able to take the spec through the rec process if something that is clearly an API is in there as a note.
The two options is to figure out what is a feasible compromise (or better, improvement) spec that another implementation can easily implement consistently and change it to that, or split it out to a separate spec and take that through rec separately. I'm a but curious if any other implementors have expressed interest in the barcode and face detector - if not that would also be an issue going through rec.
Also https://crrev.com/c/732248 FTR
Marking as Fixed as per previous CLs
I noticed that the text detection section was marked non-normative in it's entirety, which is a bit unorthodox - is this a feature that is considered essential?
This would be problematic when progressing to rec. I'd be happy to sit down and discuss a way forward on this.