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

[MSE] Guidance on how to proceed with Bug 17002

From: Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:21:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA0c1bC1=pBYU0h=bcN-v+1uRuN1PdVw2Bys4CJNxoP3r3kd2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<public-html-media@w3.org>" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Hi,

I had a few action items related to Bug
17002<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17002>,
but I've run into some unexpected snags that I'd like some guidance on.

In comment 4 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17002#c4> of
the bug I pointed out some inconsistencies between the Media Fragments spec
and the HTML 5 spec.  When I started investigating how to file a bug
against the Media Fragments spec, I discovered that Latest Editor's
draft<http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/>
and
the Proposed Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-media-frags-20120315/>
have
very different text. The Proposed Recommendation, which appears to be more
recent, doesn't even have the "Track Dimension" section. Digging throught
the mailing list history it appears that this was going to be moved to an
"advanced" spec, but the links to that point to a document that has no
mention of the "id" or "track" dimensions. This raises a few questions that
I'd like help with.

1. Which document am I supposed pay attention to?

2. If I should be looking at the Proposed Recommendation, then should I
file a bug against the HTML5 spec that asks to remove the references to the
MediaFragment spec in the
AudioTrack.id<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/media-elements.html#dom-audiotrack-id>
&
VideoTrack.id<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/media-elements.html#dom-videotrack-id>
since
the track dimension doesn't exist in that document?

3. Are there plans to develop the advanced Media Fragments spec? The
mailing-list looks pretty dead these days.

4. If the answer to #2 is yes and the answer to #3 is no, then should a bug
be filed to remove the id attribute since it appears that it was created
for MediaFragment interop?

5. Does it still make sense to file a bug against TextTrack for the missing
id field since it appears the primary reason for this field was to interact
with MediaFragments?

6. Should I change the proposed fix to Bug 17002 to the following so the
solution is independent of the id field?

partial interface MediaSource {
  SourceBuffer? getSourceBuffer(VideoTrack videoTrack);
  SourceBuffer? getSourceBuffer(AudioTrack audioTrack);
  SourceBuffer? getSourceBuffer(TextTrack textTrack);
}

Aaron
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 19:21:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 19:21:57 GMT