Re: Normative/Informative status of the spec

Le 02/11/2014 12:05, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit :
> Works for me. It think it will clarify the language.
Thanks Silvia. A few additional points for the rest of the group 
(because you probably know them).

The CG spec was briefly discussed at the end of the HTML WG's meeting at 
TPAC. I basically indicated that the spec was there, reminded its 
intent, that it needed review and I invited anyone to participate and in 
particular browser vendors. I asked the question of which wording we 
should use.

It was pointed out that the HTML5 REC references our spec (!) in an 
informative view, so we can do whatever we want.

Cyril
> Silvia.
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Cyril Concolato
> <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> During the discussion on a bug [1] and associated pull request [2], the
>> question of the status of our spec was raised. Bob mentioned a previous
>> discussion with the HTML WG chairs [3]. The assumption in that thread was
>> that our group wants "to publish [a spec] along the same lines as the "Media
>> Source Extensions Byte Stream Format Registry" was published and referenced
>> from the MSE specification.".
>>
>> If we want Web applications to be able to use in-band tracks in browsers
>> interoperably, according to our spec, we need to be able to check
>> conformance to our spec. For that, we need to have normative statements in
>> our spec. Currently, the spec is in my opinion too soft about that. In my
>> view, if an implementation decides to support both our spec and a particular
>> media resource format (say MP4), then it shall expose tracks according to
>> our spec.
>>
>> This does not seem to me contradictory to the discussion with the HTML WG
>> chairs because if you look at the ISOBMFF byte stream format for MSE [4], it
>> does indeed use normative statements such as:
>> "The user agent must support setting the offset from media ..."
>> "These boxes must be accepted and ignored by the user agent ..."
>>
>> So, my recommendation would be to rephrase our spec to be clearer as to what
>> UA shall/should/should not/may ... do using normative statements. What's the
>> opinion of the group here ?
>>
>> Cyril
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26923
>> [2] https://github.com/w3c/HTMLSourcingInbandTracks/pull/32
>> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Jun/0050.html
>> [4]
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/default/media-source/isobmff-byte-stream-format.html
>>
>> --
>> Cyril Concolato
>> Multimedia Group / Telecom ParisTech
>> http://concolato.wp.mines-telecom.fr/
>> @cconcolato
>>
>>


-- 
Cyril Concolato
Multimedia Group / Telecom ParisTech
http://concolato.wp.mines-telecom.fr/
@cconcolato

Received on Sunday, 2 November 2014 15:05:22 UTC