Re: [MSE] Homework re: issues in the context of upcoming FPWD

Adding the TF per the telecon.

-- Pierre

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux
<pal@sandflow.com> wrote:
> Hi Aaron,
>
> I am not opposed to publishing drafts on a regular basis. For the
> benefit of the reader and to solicit feedback, what about noting the
> existence of topics under discussion in the appropriate section.
>
> See suggested (informative) text below.
>
> Best,
>
> -- Pierre
>
> Section 2
> --------------
>
> "Note: Issue 19673 discusses providing additional guidance for
> seamless audio splicing."
>
> Section 4.1 (timestampOffset)
> ------------------------------------------
>
> "Note: Issue 19676 discusses the impact of using a floating point
> representation for timestampOffset when offset and durations in media
> streams are rational numbers."
>
> "Note: Issue 19784 discusses the semantics of timestampOffset in the
> context of a Media Segment that contains an audio-video multiplex
> where the first audio frame boundary is not necessarily aligned in
> time with the first video frame boundary."
>
> Section 4.1 (introduction)
> ------------------------------------
>
> "Note: Issue 20327 discusses the benefits of adding a continuousSplice
> flag to indicate that the Media Segments around a splice point are
> identical."
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com> wrote:
>> I agree. I don't believe Bug 19673 is critical to the FPWD and I support
>> leaving it out in the interest of getting to FPWD as quickly as possible.
>>
>> I don't really know what is involved in converting the MSE spec in to a
>> FPWD. I realize we still have 3 outstanding bugs, but say I decided to punt
>> them and publish FPWD today. What would I need to do to make that happen?
>> I'm just trying to figure out what work remains for publishing a FPWD that
>> isn't captured by a bug that blocks the Publish Media Source Extensions FPWD
>> bug.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 12, 2012, at 1:22 AM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> I think issue #19673 [1] would benefit the most from being included in
>>> >> the FPWD, and exposed to a broader audience.
>>> >
>>> > Why would this bug "benefit the most"?  I am becoming quite concerned
>>> > that we will never get a FPWD if we insist on getting everyone's "most
>>> > important bug" solved in the FPWD.
>>> >
>>> > In my view it is time to move to a "date driven schedule" for both the
>>> > MSE and EME FPWD's.  We should pick a date and agree that we will all work
>>> > to get as many bugs resolved by that date.  Anything not done by that date
>>> > will simply wait for a subsequent WD which could be as soon as we want after
>>> > the FPWD.
>>>
>>> I agree with Paul. FPWD doesn't have to be perfect or complete. It just
>>> has to be a reasonable starting point.
>>>
>>> The W3C Process says:
>>>
>>> "In order to make Working Drafts available to a wide audience early in
>>> their development, the requirements for publication of a Working Draft are
>>> limited to an agreement by a chartered Working Group to publish the
>>> technical report and satisfaction of the Team's Publication Rules[PUB31].
>>> Consensus is not a prerequisite for approval to publish; the Working Group
>>> may request publication of a Working Draft even if it is unstable and does
>>> not meet all Working Group requirements."
>>>
>>> The upshot is that Working Groups should look to publish a First Public
>>> Working Draft early in development, even if it is incomplete and unstable.
>>> The two media extensions have arguably already waiting too long by this
>>> standard.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Maciej
>>>
>>>
>>

Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 16:30:32 UTC