W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > October 2010

Response to your LC Comment -2395 on Media API spec

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:40:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4CB47368.4080500@w3.org>
To: James Salsman <jsalsman@talknicer.com>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>

In your latest email (below) to the MAWG response to your comment, you say :

1. You assume that audio will be accessed in PCM format such as 
audio/L16. We just don't understand how you come to this conclusion.

2- There seem to be many details for video formats in the Media API spec.
This is not true. For example the size of a video, 8 bits per channel, 
is not specified. Not sure why you also conclude that there are many 
details for video formats in the Media API

Best regards,


> Dear Thierry,

> Thank you also for your second reply below.  There seem to be many
> details for video formats in the Media API spec, but all the audio
> format parameters seem to assume that audio will be accessed in PCM
> format such as audio/L16.  If that is the intention, then I would ask
> only that the PCM sample size (e.g., 16 bits) be included as a
> parameter along with the sampling rate.  Is that acceptable?

> Best regards,
> James Salsman

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote:
  > Dear  James,
  > The Media Annotations Working Group has reviewed the comments you
sent [1]
  > on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the API for Media Resource 1.0
  > published on 08 June 2010.
  > Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to 
send us
  > comments.
  > The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.
  > Please review it carefully and *let us know by email at
  > public-media-annotation@w3.org if you agree with it or not*
  > before [09-Oct-2010].
  > In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific 
  > for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group.
  > If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the
opportunity to
  > raise a formal objection which will
  > then be reviewed by the Director during the transition of this
document to
  > the next stage in the W3C Recommendation Track.
  > Thanks,
  > For the Media Annotations Working Group,
  > Thierry Michel,
  > W3C Team Contact
  > 1.
  > 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100608
  > -----------------------
  > Resolution of the MAWG:
  > -----------------------
  > About your first issue to include audio/x-speex, please refer to our
  > previous response to your comment about speex and vp8 for the media
  > specification.
  > - Speex is a free audio codec for Free Speech, not a multimedia 
  > formats*.
  > We don't plan to introduce quality parameter as we want to keep a simple
  > list of technical properties.
  > To respond to your second issue about section 3.12.5 Samplingrate
  > The API doc states "no exceptions" at a number of places (for the
  > and also for some attributes, which is the case for the
samplingRate). The
  > "no exceptions" means that no exceptions are defined when accessing this
  > attribute. The actual text "no exceptions" in the API doc is generated
  > automatically based on the Web IDL descriptions. Since no exceptions are
  > defined on the attributes in our case, this text appears in the 
  > Note that Web IDL does allow to define exceptions for access of certain
  > properties (e.g., due to type casting), however we do not include these.
  > The API specification does not currently hold a good description of
why we
  > do not include exceptions however. Therefore we will add a statement to
  > clarify it.

Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 14:40:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:39 UTC