W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > December 2013

{minutes} HTML WG media telecon 2013-12-03 - MSE and EME status and bug discussion

From: Joe Steele <steele@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 09:00:10 -0800
To: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Message-ID: <295C505E-2930-4F13-9FBD-A1BE61BB0D30@adobe.com>
http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html

Joe Steele
steele@adobe.com




HTML Media Task Force Teleconference

03 Dec 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Aaron_Colwell, MarkW, Michael_Thornburgh, acolwell, adrianba, danny_, davide, ddorwin, glenn, jdsmith, joesteele, markw_, pal, paulc, pladd, wseltzer
Regrets
Chair
paulc
Scribe
joesteele
Contents

Topics
Role Call
Previous Minutes
MSE status and bugs
F2F Action Plan
EME Bugs and Issues
Chair and Scribe for next week?
Summary of Action Items
<trackbot> Date: 03 December 2013
<scribe> Scribe: joesteele
<paulc> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Dec/0000.html
paulc: objective is to review F2F and figure next steps
... and review progress
Role Call

<scribe> done
Previous Minutes

<paulc> F2F minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/11/14-html-wg-minutes.html
paulc: lots of EME and MSE stuff in the minutes
<ddorwin> oops
paulc: skip some action items for now -- they seem to be moot
MSE status and bugs

paulc: draft updated today
<paulc> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html
paulc: editors draft
... agenda yesterday shows 3 bugs open - but draft has been updated since then
... no more open bugs
<paulc> See MSE bugs: http://tinyurl.com/6pdnzej
F2F Action Plan

paulc: were those bugs processed?
<paulc> Bugs to be finished: 23169, 23441, and 23818
paulc: next item is -- have the editors produces a candidate CR draft?
acolwell: generated a draft
<acolwell> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/default/media-source/media-source-cr.html
acolwell: have a couple of questions
... one of the things complained about is an implementation report -- what is that?
paulc: when you go in front of the director -- need to tell him/her what forms of interop you have
... not sure how this was gone around for HTML5
acolwell: other thing is when running through the link checked - we have a reference to the file api around the origin of blob urls
... that was removed from the file api
... intent originally was to say that however it is determined it is the same for MSE
... file spec no longer says how this is achieved (definition of the origin)
... planning on filing a bug
<paulc> Normative references: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/default/media-source/media-source-cr.html#normative-references
acolwell: search for "origin of blob uris" in the spec
<paulc> Text referring to FILE-API is "A MediaSource object URL is a unique Blob URI [FILE-API] created by createObjectURL(). It is used to attach a MediaSource object to an HTMLMediaElement."
acolwell: only one reference, but I remember cyril filed a bug wanting it clarified
... believe it is the equiv of the document origin - but not an expert
paulc: section 6 says this section specifies extensions to the URI definition -- assume that does not change?
acolwell: that does not change
adrianba: one of the reasons this is important is that EME sits on top of the origin determination
... important aspects that look for same origin
... to prevent disclosing information
... using MSE and EME together -- important to know what the origin of the data was
... recall some discussion w/ Arun from Mozilla about his proposal to remove the origin tie for blocks at the April of May F2F
... pointed out we had some restrictions -- must have been dropped as they have gone ahead and removed it
acolwell: now reference only seems to be when you remove URLs -- nothing about when the blob is created
adrianba: think we need to talk to the File API group about this
... change may cause a general implementation problem
acolwell: I will file a bug
... this blocks CR
paulc: section (11) that seems to have disappeared is the URI reference for file blob
acolwell: I can copy that text
paulc: lets put that in the minutes
<paulc> The FILE-API section we were referencing is http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-FileAPI-20121025/#originOfBlob
paulc: previous working draft -- not the current one
... sounds like we should file a bug on the LC working draft issued in September -- point out the section they removed
adrianba: I think it is more complicated -- was not done by accident
paulc: who will take the action?
ddorwin: I can file the bug -- should I just copy the text?
<ddorwin> Even if it's not a simple issue, shouldn't we file a bug against FileAPI to get our foot in the door of the LC process?
adrianba: when I talked to Arun about this before -- folks were suggesting we could just remove this, but I pointed out we were relying on it
... currently our implementation only works with MSE
... since we feed information in via a blob URI which can only be de-referenced in the same origin
... if we remove we no longer have that guarantee
... this is in our implementation (Microsoft)
paulc: so Aaron will file a bug about File API
<scribe> ACTION: Aaron to file a bug on MSE about the File API change [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - File a bug on mse about the file api change [on Aaron Colwell - due 2013-12-10].
<scribe> ACTION: Adrian to speak to editors of FILE-API spec about resurrecting "origin of blob" text in spec [recorded inhttp://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Speak to editors of file api spec about resurrecting "origin of blob" text in spec [on Adrian Bateman - due 2013-12-10].
paulc: so this is blocking us getting out of LC -- contact me once you have dealt with the problem
... by next Tuesday?
... thanks for the due diligence
acolwell: one more question
... latest streams editors draft is significantly different than what was before - so we have a reference to previous working draft
... is that ok for a CR document?
... names may not be stable enough otherwise
... TR would be OK, but current editors draft changes would break us
paulc: I had an action item (231)
<paulc> ACTION: paulc to coordinate with Web Apps on the streams API, give them MSE requirements and timeline [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Coordinate with web apps on the streams api, give them mse requirements and timeline [on Paul Cotton - due 2013-12-10].
paulc: seems related
<paulc> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/231
paulc: at the F2F pointed out we need to coordinate with Streams API
... I will close the working group tracker action and use this one instead
... which items are actually changing in the spec?
<paulc> Editor's draft of Streams: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm
acolwell: we reference a stream item, but we reference readable stream items, writeable stream items, not clear whether we should reference
pal: my recall is that this group would express its preference to the group in charge of this spec
paulc: yes -- we have a normative dependency
pal: until this is done and an answer is received, hard to make a determination how to resolve this issue
... specifically -- should not reference an older version hoping it will not change
paulc: agree completely
... we could if we got the confirmation back
... we need to make sure we understand what is happening
adrianba: I think what Aaron has done -- link to a dated draft is reasinable for a CR
... at TPAC we did not know where this was going to go and did not want to mark as "at risk"
... we have continued to reference streams
... will go back and tidy up references to streams once it becomes stable
... looks now like a simple change, but could change more
... think it is reasonable to say "this is the concept we had in mind -- we will fix once stabilized"
paulc: as chair, I think that is a reasonable approach. Need to make sure our references are stable to get out of CR
<pal> sounds good.
paulc: could issue a new CR before LC
... my action is still pending
... any more questions?
acolwell: IIRC, you said we need a reference to bugs resolved for LC
paulc: that is the implementation report, and needs to be given separately to the director
... including how we handled all the LC bugs
... I was planning to use a bug search
acolwell: wanted to make sure there was nothing else I need to do
adrianba: started putting a summary disposition of comments on the wiki
<scribe> ACTION: Adrian to produce a summary of last positions for LC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-60 - Produce a summary of last positions for lc [on Adrian Bateman - due 2013-12-10].
acolwell: nothing more
<paulc> >CfC for MSE CR Working Draft is awaiting candidate draft from Editors
<paulc> The CfCs are on hold until we dispose of the FILE-API reference question.
EME Bugs and Issues

paulc: spec does not appear to have changed since the 14th
... can EME editors give an update of bugs from F2F?
adrianba: short summary - no more work has been done
... David updated the bugs with some of the discussion
paulc: reasonable to give editors another week or two to catch up?
... schedule another dual meeting next week?
adrianba: we could discuss EME next week
paulc: would help if by the weekend you could give me some idea of how to organize the discussion
... touched on a lot but did not make decisions at F2F
... make a list of bugs to discuss and dispose of
... use this an the agenda for next weeks discussion
<paulc> ACTION: paulc to work with wendy to make sure we get a security review of EME [recorded inhttp://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - Work with wendy to make sure we get a security review of eme [on Paul Cotton - due 2013-12-10].
paulc: this is the Privacy IG review
<paulc> ACTION: paulc to report back about the plan for 20944 due 2013-12-15 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Report back about the plan for 20944 due 2013-12-15 [on Paul Cotton - due 2013-12-10].
<markw_> privacy review and security review are separate things
paulc: Privacy IG has an outstanding item to give us a review -- email about this in the archive
... need to find out what the bar is for success
markw_: think that action was to review the security section - not the privacy review
paulc: think that completes the agenda
Chair and Scribe for next week?

paulc: we will not meet on Dec 24th and 31st
... meeting on Dec 10th will start with MSE and then move to EME an technical discussions
... suggest we adjourn
Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Aaron to file a bug on MSE about the File API change [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Adrian to produce a summary of last positions for LC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Adrian to speak to editors of FILE-API spec about resurrecting "origin of blob" text in spec [recorded inhttp://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: paulc to coordinate with Web Apps on the streams API, give them MSE requirements and timeline [recorded inhttp://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: paulc to report back about the plan for 20944 due 2013-12-15 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: paulc to work with wendy to make sure we get a security review of EME [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action05]
 
[End of minutes]
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-12-03 16:55:19 $



Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 17:00:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:01 UTC