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

Re: [MSE] Guidance on how to proceed with Bug 17002

From: Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:44:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA0c1bBvyu0s40JWNaPVSV-cb5uqNrFE8FJSS_xni3-QWoi3Eg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: "<public-html-media@w3.org>" <public-html-media@w3.org>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi Silvia,

Ok. It looks like I need to read up on the W3C process. I got really
confused because when I follow the link from the HTML spec it takes me to
the 30 November 2011
WD<http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/>
and
if I click on the "Latest version" link at the top I end up at the
PR<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/> which
is the subset. :/

Anyways, if the WD is what I'm supposed to pay attention to then I'll
proceed with filing an issue against the WD & file a bug against HTML5 to
add and id attribute to TextTrack.

Thanks for your help,
Aaron


On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Aaron,
>
> I have asked the Media Fragment WG for clarification (and am also
> cc-ing this email).
>
> As far as I remember, features were only allowed to go into the
> Proposed Recommendation document if they were shown to have two
> interoperable implementations. Since at the time that wasn't the case
> for track and id features, they weren't "allowed in". Thus, it is most
> likely that referring to the WD document for these features is still
> the correct path to take.
>
> I think, if we can now show implementations for the track and id
> features, that would be a good time to request the MF WG to update the
> PR doc.
>
> Regards,
> Silvia.
>
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I had a few action items related to Bug 17002, but I've run into some
> > unexpected snags that I'd like some guidance on.
> >
> > In comment 4 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 and the Proposed Recommendation 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 & 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 23:44:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 23:44:50 GMT