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

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

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 12:32:30 +0000
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com>
CC: "<public-html-media@w3.org>" <public-html-media@w3.org>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AB5704B0EEC35B4691114DC04366B37F162652E8@TK5EX14MBXC290.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> 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.

I am curious.  Why has the Media Fragments 1.0 PR [1] not progressed to Recommendation status?  It was published in March 2012 and the AC review ended in April according to the Status section of the document.    Is it waiting for a normative reference to catch up?

/paulc

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/ 

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 7:06 PM
To: Aaron Colwell
Cc: <public-html-media@w3.org>; Media Fragment
Subject: Re: [MSE] Guidance on how to proceed with Bug 17002

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 Saturday, 22 September 2012 12:33:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 22 September 2012 12:33:09 GMT