W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > December 2012

RE: {minutes} HTML WG media telecon 2012-12-04 - media source extension action and bugs

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 17:09:56 +0000
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
CC: "Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com> (acolwell@google.com)" <acolwell@google.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Message-ID: <ae37acdb30614a7e918178597d4e8028@BL2PR03MB604.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Minutes -> http://www.w3.org/2012/12/04-html-media-minutes.html



                               - DRAFT -

                  HTML Media Task Force Teleconference

04 Dec 2012

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Dec/0000.html


   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/12/04-html-media-irc


Attendees

   Present
          paulc, adrianba, +1.425.202.aaaa, ddorwin,
          +1.310.210.aabb, [Microsoft], pal, Aaron_Colwell,
          BobLund, +1.760.533.aacc

   Regrets
   Chair
          Paul Cotton

   Scribe
          Adrian Bateman

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Roll call, introductions and selection of scribe
         2. [6]Previous meeting minutes
         3. [7]Review of action items
         4. [8]Baseline documents and Bugzilla information
         5. [9]Actions from F2F meeting
         6. [10]Discussion of outstanding bugs
         7. [11]Progression to First Public Working Draft
         8. [12]Other business
         9. [13]Chair and Scribe for next meeting
        10. [14]Adjournment
     * [15]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

Roll call, introductions and selection of scribe

   paulc: done

Previous meeting minutes

   paulc: we took most of November off so I pointed to the TPAC
   F2F minutes

   [16]http://www.w3.org/2012/11/01-html-wg-minutes.html


     [16] http://www.w3.org/2012/11/01-html-wg-minutes.html


   paulc: we might need to pick on peoples' memory for some items

Review of action items

   ACTION-6?

   <trackbot> ACTION-6 -- Aaron Colwell to give a couple of
   examples for section 2 -- due 2012-11-01 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/6


     [17] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/6


   acolwell: I sent out a message right before TPAC but no one
   responded

   <acolwell>
   [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012O

   ct/0062.html

     [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Oct/0062.html


   acolwell: I've already started work on this - i assumed that
   silence meant nobody objected

   close ACTION-6

   <trackbot> ACTION-6 Give a couple of examples for section 2
   closed

   acolwell: i'll land these changes in a couple of stages because
   some is removing things, some is rewriting, etc

   paulc: I had an action item at the WG level
   ... ACTION-223
   ... [19]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/223

   ... this is related to bug 17002
   ... we had two discussions - the first implied that we might
   need a change to IDs for 5.1
   ... later we picked up 17002 again and decided that there was a
   solution that removed the dependency on 18960 or any changes in
   HTML 5.1
   ... i believe this action item isn't need for MSE?

     [19] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/223


   acolwell: we don't require it any more but we might need to
   link to something

   paulc: the issue from TPAC is do we want to link to HTML 5.1 or
   HTML 5.0

   acolwell: ok

   paulc: my plan is to close ACTION-223 since we don't need this

   acolwell: we don't have the dependency any more

   paulc: let's deal with the detail when we discuss 18960

Baseline documents and Bugzilla information

   paulc: aaron, you made an update on 28 nov
   ... one bug 19531 appears to be done but was not marked as
   resolved

   acolwell: i didn't resolve it because there was a comment in
   the thread that it was ambiguous if the user agent supported a
   MIME type that it automatically implied MSE also had to support
   the MIME type and i'm making some modifications that it is
   possible for an element to play a MIME type but MSE doesn't
   need to
   ... within a day or so i will complete this bug

   <paulc> Summary of Nov 28 changes:
   [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012N

   ov/0012.html

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Nov/0012.html


   paulc: you've mentioned immiment changes - can you summarise
   which are the changes you have in mind

   acolwell: i've been working on 19531 we just discussed, i also
   started on 18575 (removing sub-sections from section 2)
   ... concentrating on things i said i would remove and moving
   2.4 and 2.5 into section 8

   paulc: let's go through the bugs in the order i have them

   acolwell: those are the ones i started - i was about to start
   on more and the discussion can help drive that

Actions from F2F meeting

   paulc: i said in the agenda that we should discuss items that
   are still pending
   ... but i'd like to go to topic 6 on bugs because it's mostly
   the same
   ... i'd like to step us through some of the items and record
   what is outstanding and next steps

Discussion of outstanding bugs

   paulc: the first pair of bugs we've partially touched on 18960
   and 17002
   ... 17002 first, adrianba took an action item to implement a
   change removing the dependency on 18960

   adrianba: i updated the bug this morning and assigned it to me

   [21]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17002#c9


     [21] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17002#c9


   paulc: now 18960
   ... wasn't obvious from the meeting minutes what action we took

   [22]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18960


     [22] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18960


   acolwell: i believe the result was that MediaSource should
   generate unique IDs because the consensus was keeping them
   stable was more important than linking to the media
   ... think simon suggested we could add another property for the
   media id
   ... let me check my notes

   <pal> P.S.: i need to relocate and drop off IRC

   acolwell: david singer suggested unique and generated by media
   source object
   ... i think mark suggested a way to pass IDs to media source
   but don't think that ended up going anywhere

   paulc: can you do 18960 in two stages: put the F2F
   recommendation as a comment in the bug so it is recorded then
   is it on your TODO list?

   acolwell: if people are okay saying they are generated and
   unique then i can do that

   paulc: yes, but we need to put that in the bug

   adrianba: i think it is fine to add the unique IDs - we can
   always change later if we find we need the link back to media
   IDs

   acolwell: i agree

   paulc: then let's include this comment in the bug - we're not
   adding the link until we get more implementation experience
   ... if someone sees that and gives a reason for why it should
   be mandatory

   acolwell: part of the reason why simon mentioned having a
   separate field is because this allows adding without violating
   HTML5

   paulc: next is 18962
   ... this is pending a change from adrianba

   <paulc> See
   [23]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18962#c3


     [23] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18962#c3


   adrianba: this is XHR append
   ... i started work on the related actions from WebApps
   ... creating new XHR spec and updating Streams spec which we'll
   need to link to
   ... we can then add the append() method for Stream
   ... and we'll need two events for complete and error
   ... but i have a separate question on events

   paulc: do you have an ETA?

   adrianba: i have friday morning to work on this but i need to
   coordinate with aaron on the changes he's making

   paulc: 18963 - looks like the F2F minutes say we will throw an
   exception
   ... is this on your pending list?

   acolwell: yes, i was thinking of adding that as part of the
   next change

   paulc: 19531, which we've already discussed
   ... 17094 - we have a proposal from Bob Lund - there was an
   attempt to have an action on glenn to do something here but it
   didn't get recorded because tracker didn't recognise glenn
   ... i'd like to know the status of this because we have a
   concrete proposal
   ... glenn reached out to bob and myself and we've been having a
   side discussion about the outstanding issues
   ... we've been iterating on that - yesterday i proposed an
   alternate proposal for how to do appending that restricts out
   of order appending for TS
   ... you can't do out of order append without intervening abort
   call
   ... which is different to the other formats but the only way i
   can see to make TS sane
   ... we're making progress on it
   ... i need to send out a proposal to the list saying where we
   are

   acolwell: is that fair, Bob?

   BobLund: yes

   adrianba: can you put a link to the mail in the bug once sent?
   ... also can we get something into the spec sooner rather than
   later and then iterate on it separately

   acolwell: i'll try to get something in there then

Progression to First Public Working Draft

   paulc: chairs met yesterday and the question i was asked by the
   team was when are we going to see the FPWD of media specs
   ... w3c is starting to get questions from outside about
   progress of the work
   ... despite all the public information about bugs, drafts, etc.
   but the team is asking what are the next steps
   ... so the question is of the pending bugs which are blocking
   bugs that this group wants to process before a CfC for FPWD
   inside the Task Force subsequently followed by sending to the
   WG for a CfC for publication at the WG level
   ... i'll give a candidate list

   acolwell: what are the criteria for FPWD?
   ... is it okay to add details but not scope?

   paulc: i'll try to answer but the answer is subjective
   ... you only have to agreement on going to FPWD not on all of
   the content
   ... many FPWD have links to bugs in the document to emphasise
   that some things are not final
   ... the second item we spoke about before the summer
   ... general agreement on EME and MSE - we wanted the API design
   to be right because it would be misleading to public a FPWD of
   the old design and then immediately change to a new one
   ... i think that item subject to some of the work in 18575 is
   largely done
   ... so the only other matter is the patent policy trigger that
   fires on FPWD
   ... members have 150 days to disclose or exclude patents on the
   draft
   ... so you want the scope to be clear to people so that if they
   do an active patent search then the material in the document is
   a good indication of where the group intends to take the
   document
   ... i think we've done the API design although there are some
   interesting bugs
   ... and on the last item, scope, we're close to done
   ... we're receiving pressure to show visible progress i.e. FPWD
   ... we don't have to be bug clean - that's Last Call
   ... so my question is which of the outstanding bugs does the TF
   want to get done before sending to WG with a list of
   outstanding bugs and say these are items we continue to work on
   but want to publish FPWD

   pal: one question for the editors is whether the resolution of
   some of these bugs will cause a substantial change to the
   document
   ... perhaps we can see if those bugs will cause major changes

   acolwell: i don't anticipate major changes from the remaining
   bugs

   pal: for example on the seamless transition requires structural
   changes that is one thing but it might just be an annexe

   acolwell: i can give an initial list
   ... 19531 (mime type), 18963 (rate limit appending), 18960 (id
   generation), 18962 (XHR), 18615 (buffered), 17094 (TS), 17002
   (tracks), 17006 (language/kind)
   ... those seem structural to the API and aren't just detail

   paulc: that's pretty close to the list that adrian and i had

   acolwell: will check on 18615

   paulc: does anyone want to propose something else?

   pal: 19784 timestamp offset in the case of a multiplex - i'd
   like to get an idea of how the editors plan to address that

   paulc: this wasn't discussed at F2F

   acolwell: think we didn't get to it - came in right before TPAC

   paulc: pal, you're saying it's hard to answer the question
   without knowing the outcome of this bug

   pal: yes

   acolwell: isn't this just related to considering the start of
   the segment where video is not audio

   pal: this is if audio starts before video and you want to sync
   on video boundary

   acolwell: this is about UA figuring out which timestamp to use
   ... i don't think this changes the append method signature

   adrianba: when asked how should the editors process a bug i
   look for the spec text in the bug
   ... when i don't find some then my question is to turn it back
   to the group and ask for a concrete proposal

   pal: can the other bug on seamless go in FPWD?

   paulc: we have to be careful because we can't put everything in
   or else we'll never get there

   acolwell: i don't think these are blocking because they won't
   change the API shape
   ... we definitely need to address the bugs but i don't think
   they are blocking

   pal: if the threshold is whether an API change is needed then i
   can look at the bugs and see if i think they will change API

   paulc: even if they will affect the API, we might still not
   need to take them if they're not of the same magnitude as the
   changes in the summer
   ... i'm going to take aaron's list, pal wants to consider 19673
   and 19784
   ... i'd like to see a plan from the editors on the list saying
   what order they are going to address them in and by when
   ... then i can go back to the team with a plan
   ... if it turns out one of the bugs will take a long time
   perhaps we'll change our mind on if we need it
   ... i want to see the plan in two weeks and preferably well
   before then
   ... if we have something on the list i can point people outside
   the TF to that
   ... is that okay?

   adrianba: yes

   acolwell: i think this list is easy to knock out, xhr is
   probably the most difficult

   paulc: for everyone involved in EME, you can expect the same
   questions next week

Other business

   paulc: none

Chair and Scribe for next meeting

   paulc: next meeting is dec 18 and then would be jan 1, when we
   probably won't meet, so it's important to make progress before
   the next meeting

Adjournment

   paulc: good progress today, we're adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________

_________________________
From: Paul Cotton 
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 4:15 PM
To: public-html-media@w3.org
Cc: Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com> (acolwell@google.com); Adrian Bateman; Mark Watson
Subject: {agenda} HTML WG media telecon 2012-12-04 - media source extension action and bugs

The HTML WG media teleconference meeting will occur on 2012-12-04 for up to 60 minutes from 15:00Z to 16:00Z.

http://timeanddate.com/s/2ad2


Tokyo midnight, Amsterdam/Oslo 17:00, London/Dublin 16:00, New Jersey/York 11:00, Kansas City 10:00, Seattle/San Francisco 08:00.

Chair of the meeting: Paul Cotton
Scribe: TBD

(See the end of this email for dial-in and IRC info.)

== Agenda ==

1. Roll call, introductions and selection of scribe

2. Previous meeting minutes
Lyon F2F minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2012/11/01-html-wg-minutes.html 

3. Review of action items
https://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/


ACTION-6: Give a couple of examples for section 2 (Aaron)
https://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/6


WG action item:
ACTION-223: Figure out how extension specs can refer to HTML 5.1 (Paul Cotton)
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/223 

4. Baseline documents and Bugzilla information

a) Media Source Extensions editor's draft: 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html

Status as of Dec 3:  Last updated in Nov 28.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Nov/0012.html


b) Media Source Extension bugs: 
http://tinyurl.com/6pdnzej

Status as of Dec 3: 16 bugs (see list at end of agenda)

5. Actions from F2F meeting
Lyon F2F minutes:
http://www.w3.org/2012/11/01-html-wg-minutes.html

Status:  We should discuss which F2F items are still pending and the schedule for additional editorial work.

6. Discussion of outstanding bugs

7. Progression to First Public Working Draft

8. Other Business

9. Chair and Scribe for next meeting

10. Adjournment

== Dial-in and IRC Details ==

Zakim teleconference bridge:
   +1.617.761.6200, conference 63342 ("media")
https://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#s_5366


Supplementary IRC chat (logged):
   #html-media on irc.w3.org port 6665 or port 80


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

ID▲ 
Product 
Comp 
Assignee▲ 
Status▲ 
Resolution 
Summary 
Changed 
17002 
HTML WG 
Media So 
adrianba 
NEW 
--- 
Specify a mechanism to determine which SourceBuffer an AudioTrack,VideoTrack, or TextTrack belong to. 
2012-10-22 
18592 
HTML WG 
Media So 
adrianba 
NEW 
--- 
How much is "enough data to ensure uninterrupted playback" 
2012-10-22 
18960 
HTML WG 
Media So 
adrianba 
NEW 
--- 
Define how AudioTrack.id & VideoTrack.id are generated 
2012-10-22 
18962 
HTML WG 
Media So 
adrianba 
NEW 
--- 
Allow appending with XHR 
2012-10-22 
18963 
HTML WG 
Media So 
adrianba 
NEW 
--- 
Provide a mechanism for rate limiting appending 
2012-10-22 
19531 
HTML WG 
Media So 
adrianba 
NEW 
--- 
simplify MIME type capability detection 
Wed 19:06 
19673 
HTML WG 
Media So 
adrianba 
NEW 
--- 
Seamless audio signal transitions at splice points 
2012-10-24 
19676 
HTML WG 
Media So 
adrianba 
NEW 
--- 
timestampOffset accuracy 
2012-10-24 
19784 
HTML WG 
Media So 
adrianba 
NEW 
--- 
timestampOffset with multiplexed Media Segments 
2012-10-30 
18575 
HTML WG 
Media So 
acolwell 
ASSI 
--- 
Section 2. Source Buffer Model should be non-normative 
2012-10-22 
18615 
HTML WG 
Media So 
acolwell 
ASSI 
--- 
Define how SourceBuffer.buffered maps to HTMLMediaElement.buffered 
2012-10-22 
18642 
HTML WG 
Media So 
acolwell 
ASSI 
--- 
Handle timestamp overflow in append(data) 
2012-10-22 
17006 
HTML WG 
Media So 
adrianba 
ASSI 
--- 
<track> Setting track language & kind when the information is in a manifest 
2012-10-22 
17094 
HTML WG 
Media So 
b.lund 
ASSI 
--- 
Define segment formats for MPEG2-TS 
2012-10-22 
18400 
HTML WG 
Media So 
watsonm 
ASSI 
--- 
Define and document timestamp heuristics 
2012-10-22 
18933 
HTML WG 
Media So 
watsonm 
ASSI 
--- 
Segment byte boundaries are not defined 
2012-10-21 
16 bugs found.

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 17:13:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 December 2012 17:13:37 GMT