- 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>
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 UTC