Re: Normative/Informative status of the spec

On 11/2/14, 8:04 AM, "Cyril Concolato"
<cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote:

>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.

If the WG is OK with normative language in the sourcing spec then I think
that is a good idea.

>
>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 15:30:08 UTC