W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > January 2013

[minutes] Dec 6 teleconf

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:31:46 +0100
Message-ID: <1358757106.3973.3.camel@cumulustier>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Hi,

This task force had a teleconference on December 6 2012, and for a
variety of reasons, the minutes had never been sent to the list. They
are available at http://www.w3.org/2012/12/06-mediacap-minutes and
copied as text below. Sorry for the delay!

Dom


                Media Capture Task Force Teleconference

06 Dec 2012

   [2]Agenda

      [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Dec/0019.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/12/06-mediacap-irc

Attendees

   Present
          gmandyam, Jim_Barnett, +91.22.39.14.aaaa,
          +46.1.07.14.aabb, +1.650.241.aacc, [IPcaller],
          +46.1.07.14.aadd, Dom, [Microsoft], +1.650.678.aaee,
          Josh_Soref, +1.610.889.aaff, Dan_Burnett, [Mozilla],
          hta, jesus|laptop, [GVoice], +46.1.07.14.aagg, stefanh,
          Travis_Leithead, Frederick_Hirsch, Stefan_Hakansson,
          Martin, Thomson, Martin_Thomson,
          Dominique_Hazael-Massieux

   Regrets
   Chair
          stefanh

   Scribe
          Josh_Soref, dom

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Agenda
         2. [6]Version 5 of device handling/change settings
            proposal
         3. [7]Synchronous getUserMedia
         4. [8]Recording proposal
         5. [9]Moving forward with getUserMedia
         6. [10]F2F meeting
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 06 December 2012

   <Josh_Soref> scribe: Josh_Soref

Agenda

   stefanh: maybe we'll start with Travis
   ... let's approve the minutes from October 9th?

   <stefanh>
   [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/20
   12Nov/att-0041/minutes-2012-10-09.html

     [12]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Nov/att-0041/minutes-2012-10-09.html

   RESOLUTION: Approve minutes from October 9

Version 5 of device handling/change settings proposal

   <Travis>
   [13]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/media-stream-capture
   /proposals/SettingsAPI_proposal_v5.html

     [13]
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/media-stream-capture/proposals/SettingsAPI_proposal_v5.html

   Travis: i'll start w/ the high level changes
   ... i think we're all familiar w/ the v4 version we discussed
   at TPAC
   ... i think we're familiar w/ the changes we discussed
   ... I wanted to accommodate the idea of synchronous
   GetUserMedia
   ... and placeholder streams
   ... there might be settings exposed on a track that don't make
   sense to return a value
   ... until you have a source associated with a track
   ... previously you could only get a track until it was ...
   ... until getUserMedia had approved the track
   ... meaning there was likely a source behind the track
   ... in the new world, it's likely you could get a track without
   a source
   ... in section 2,
   ... the track hierarchy is simplified
   ... you don't have devices inheriting from tracks
   ... MediaStreamTrack is still the root object
   ... derived VideoStreamTrack and AudioStreamTrack

   <ekr> can whoever is not muted besides travis please mute?

   Travis: I redefined MediaStreamTrack so i can extend the
   readyState

   <ekr> I am hearing a lot of heavy breathing

   Travis: I defined it the new state
   ... i did some other provisional changes, we'll talk about them
   later

   <ekr> Josh: there is probably a keypress interface to mute

   Travis: going to section 2.2

   <martin> my comment on the mediastreamtrack was related to
   states: muted might be orthogonal to readystate

   hta: there are some tracks, you defined Facing as a track level
   attribute
   ... and why not a device attribute?

   Travis: i heard that feedback twice
   ... my motivation was to have things that i consider Settings
   only exist on Source objects
   ... things I don't consider mutable elsewhere
   ... i've since heard the feedback
   ... if you exclude Facing, there's a single attribute "source"
   ... to get from Track to Source, it's now a property instead of
   via inheritance
   ... there's a similar source attribute on AudioStreamTrack
   ... there's now a provisional [Constructor] on these
   ... to allow you to do `new VideoStreamTrack`
   ... in JS, without using getUserMedia
   ... in section 3
   ... these don't have a hierarchy
   ... there's a little between video stream source and picture
   sources
   ... there are 4 kinds of sources
   ... 2 are obvious: source representing video device
   ... and microphone device
   ... their settings are attributes
   ... that you can see directly on these sources
   ... that you can query with an if statement to see if it exists
   ... and you can read its value
   ... so on video you could get the current height, width,
   framerate
   ... read mirroring/rotation
   ... zoom factor
   ... focus
   ... light

   ekr: there's a large side channel in this interface
   ... if i allow you to share cameras
   ... and i allow you to XXX
   ... i can determine YYY

   Travis: because the video source would be identifiable

   ekr: I regularly poll these objects
   ... Hangout regularly changes its zoom every 3s
   ... and some other site changes its zoom every 5s
   ... I'm not saying I oppose this
   ... but we should acknowledge that sharing these bits

   Travis: [summarizing]
   ... multiple sites may be able to display a single camera
   source
   ... if i change the zoom factor value in one application
   ... that zoom factor could be observable by another site
   ... knowing the camera is being changed
   ... could let you determine the site

   ekr: certain sites use whitebalance settings
   ... another factor is competitive manipulation
   ... if we both try to zoom at the same time

   Travis: yep
   ... there's a large question about Exclusivity of a camera
   device
   ... that we could have a discussion of

   QQQ: now seems like a good time

   <dom> [how does hangout handle this? how do native apps deal
   with this in general?]

   QQQ: maybe we could say access to a device is origin specific

   Travis: if i recall my discussion with the OS team
   ... the OS defines access to devices
   ... only the front and center app can have access at one time

   <ekr> on macos, applications can share the camera

   Travis: and if you switch applications, the new application can
   steal it
   ... the difference between w8 and classic
   ... when a classic app takes access of a video device, nothing
   can steal it

   jesup|laptop: that's true

   scribe: but we're talking about different tabs from the same
   app
   ... those OS level controls don't help you

   Travis: you'd have to redefine it

   hta: we have multiple OSs with different semantics
   ... opening the same camera in different tabs is extremely
   useful

   ekr: BBB
   ... Chrome currently allows two tabs from different origins to
   have camera access
   ... Firefox does not
   ... i probably agree with martin
   ... i don't want to decide this without justin on the phone
   ... and then revisit it
   ... unless hta can proxy

   hta: i can't proxy

   jesup|laptop: i'd largely agree with martin

   scribe: it covers most cases safely
   ... if you want to allow unsafe sharing
   ... it could be an about:config option

   hta: this seems like a best practice implementation concern

   ekr: given i know how chrome behaves
   ... with manipulation
   ... we could Forbidden
   ... describe interaction
   ... maybe one tab controls settings
   ... or just live with it
   ... i think just live with it won't work

   stefanh: i'd like to record an issue/action

   Travis: i agree

   ekr: justin might be on in 10 minute

   martin: run this at the end if we have the time?

   Travis: resuming...
   ... if you look at video stream source and audio stream source
   ... there's a method for stopping a source on the source object
   ... there's a method for getting the number of available
   devices of this type
   ... which replaces the devices from the previous version
   ... as i mentioned in this proposal, there's a fingerprinting
   issue
   ... this allows the app developer to skip the request for
   camera if there aren't any
   ... and if you'd like to be aware of new devices
   ... the only mechanism is to poll at regular intervals

   stefanh: is there the possibility to change the source of a
   track?

   Travis: good question

   <ekr> chairs, should we be using queue discipline here or just
   jump in.

   Travis: i hadn't though too much about that

   <ekr> I tried to be polite this time, but I'm good either way

   Travis: with the new model
   ... it's extremely easy to create a new track
   ... and then set a new source from it

   stefanh: if you create a track and send it over peer connection
   ... if you create a new one and do a new negotiation

   Travis: that's in the peer connection

   adambe: if i request 2 different streams
   ... from getUserMedia
   ... and get 2 tracks referencing the same video source

   Travis: in my proposal

   <martin> for this last item :)

   Travis: there's an expectation there's a single source object
   ... no matter how many tracks you create
   ... you'd be affecting global settings for all tracks

   hta: you're doing settings from the source

   adambe: seems a bit confusing
   ... you could have competing settings

   Travis: that's why it's important to represent it that way
   ... you might have two, but if you only have one
   ... this singleton settings object helps enforce that concept

   ekr: looking at this interface
   ... assigning an identifier for a camera
   ... for the duration of an origin
   ... doesn't increase the fingerprinting
   ... if there are 5 cameras and they're named A,B,C,D,E
   ... then the site can build up some sense of the cameras you
   have
   ... look at the Hangouts interface

   <martin> +1 to guid idea, so that you can have some sort of
   application stability, and request a specific camera again when
   you return

   ekr: with the camera picker
   ... and you flick back and forth
   ... to allow the site to present them in the same order
   ... otherwise it's hard to flip back and fourth

   <martin> but you must ensure that different origins get
   different, unlinkable identifiers

   ekr: either number 0..N
   ... or simply have them have hokey identifiers
   ... and have an attribute to getUserMedia for "get me device N"

   <martin> numbering from zero is not going to work, because the
   set of devices is not stable

   Travis: object identity serves that purpose
   ... but for constraints, you need that

   <martin> getDeviceIds() : sequence<guid>

   burn: i went to the WebRTC conference last week
   ... and someone specifically mentioned that
   ... Nurses coming into a room
   ... as an application he wants a way to say "i want the last
   device i set up"
   ... or "get back the one i got before"
   ... a constraint that's mandatory/optional

   <martin> constraint = deviceId : guid

   gmandyam: back to get-num-devices
   ... hanging off streamSource
   ... i thought i understood
   ... but now i'm not really sure
   ... i thought it was device specific
   ... but it seems like it'd be better to be a method you
   obtained at a higher level api
   ... why is it here instead of elsewhere?

   <adambe> +1 on gmandyam's proposal

   Travis: the reason, gmandyam, is to separate between Video and
   Audio categories
   ... i could have a method on [Navigator]
   ... but that seemed klugy
   ... so i put it here
   ... the Static moniker on that method
   ... means there's only a single instance of the method
   ... on the Constructor rather than on the object instances
   ... so it'd be on VideoStreamSource.

   gmandyam: but VideoStreamSource is specific to a device

   <dom> VideoStreamSource::getNumDevices()

   Travis: the instance of a VideoStreamSource videoStreamSource
   is specific to a device
   ... but the class method isn't

   hta: we should speed up

   Travis: there's a PictureStreamSource
   ... an inherited source from VideoStreamSource
   ... but it allows the high-res-photo bits

   <scribe> ... new in this proposal are RemoteMediaSources

   UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: things you get from PeerConnection
   ... i think stefanh had great input
   ... this source object would allow you to change settings from
   a remote source
   ... Section 4 is how i want to frame
   ... what it means to change settings
   ... if you haven't read this, this is the most important thing
   to read through
   ... sources on a `home device` don't always necessarily impact
   sources on a client across the network
   ... there's a divide with a PeerConnection
   ... sinks themselves can communicate back to a source device
   what the optimal settings would be
   ... it doesn't make sense to use a high res for a source if
   none of the sinks need it
   ... the way you change settings is in 4.2
   ... anant and i came up with this over TPAC
   ... 3 apis
   ... you provide a setting (attributes defined in the spec)
   ... getRange()
   ... given a setting tells you the range for the setting
   ... get()
   ... gives the value for a setting
   ... set() is the request to change a setting
   ... you pass in a constraint
   ... these set() requests are queued and attempt to apply them
   ... anything isMandatory that can't be satisfied raises an
   error
   ... there's no feedback for success
   ... in section 5 i talk about constraints
   ... that map to other things in the proposal
   ... in section 6 i redid the syntax of various scenarios in JS
   ... gmandyam looking at GetNumDevices in 6.1 might help you
   understand how that works
   ... there was great feedback on the list
   ... lots of little things i'd like to have another go at
   ... it seems this is still moving in the right direction
   ... we still need a discussion on sync getUserMedia

   martin: one thing that's a little unclear on Settings
   ... i see Sources having constraints they're operating under
   ... within those constraints, it can change its mode at any
   time
   ... in response to sinks
   ... in the example in 4.1
   ... output video scales down, camera scales down
   ... kinda wrong on this, the source has constraints
   ... but the streams should have concrete values
   ... width/height/framerate
   ... i'd like to set constraints on source
   ... but you only get output-value on Stream

   burn: related
   ... at TPAC
   ... i thought we decided between settings/constraints, we'd
   just have constraints
   ... to be very precise, you'd set constraints that only allow a
   single value
   ... a single value isn't something you would set

   Travis: when you talked about Stream, i mapped that to Track

   martin: i meant that
   ... maybe we need to change the name, it's confusing

   Travis: i think that makes sense
   ... i'd change where you read values to Tracks
   ... and change how getRange/set/get
   ... so you could introspect constraints on a source
   ... and modify the constraints
   ... so you'd be affecting constraints on a device
   ... if you narrow constraints to only allow a single value
   ... it'd either allow a single value, or fail

   burn: just trying to make clear what we're doing wrt settings

   Travis: makes sense
   ... re: stefanh 's comment about dropping width/height as a
   constraint
   ... and make that something that sink's tell sources under the
   hood

   gmandyam: martin asked about
   ... Settings v. Constraints
   ... i put this in my email yesterday
   ... i asked about vendor values in the IANA registry
   ... without that, it isn't very useful

   <martin> we need extensibility, that should be fine with expert
   review

   stefanh: the registry, is going to expert review

   burn: correct

   hta: anyone can request one

   Travis: to wrap up
   ... we ought to have a way to specify a specific source
   identifier
   ... so you can request it using a constraint
   ... and restructuring read()ing settings and how we go about
   applying settings
   ... i'll take an action to make those adjustments

   stefanh: when do you think you can have that?

   Travis: within a couple of weeks
   ... before Christmas

   stefanh: we'd like to move forward

   martin: i wanted to make sure we captured the issues
   ... the other that hasn't been discussed this morning is
   mandatory constraints
   ... wrt fingerprinting

   stefanh: we should also sort out windows for the same camera

Synchronous getUserMedia

   martin: has everyone got the slides i sent around the other
   day?

   <stefanh>
   [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/20
   12Dec/att-0027/a_synchronous_choice.pptx

     [14]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Dec/att-0027/a_synchronous_choice.pptx

   martin: peer connections require media streams
   ... often device characteristics determine the nature of the
   stream
   ... you can't do negotiation without consent
   ... in call-answer this isn't desirable
   ... there's a reason to want a placeholder stream
   ... stable identifier "camera", "microphone"
   ... browser needs to be able to continue to identify this
   ... option 1

   [ Slide 4 of 8 ]

   martin: getUserMedia returns streams that do not start until
   consent is granted
   ... A new started event is added to tracks.
   ... denial of consent ...

   burn: when permission is never granted
   ... you could get end-event without start?

   martin: yes
   ... user could also get consent and never clicks anything
   ... in which case you get no events

   burn: thanks

   martin: option 2

   [ Slide 5 of 8 ]

   martin: As option 1, except the return value is a wrapper:

   <scribe> scribe: dom

   martin: another option is to use an extra arg as harald
   proposed at some point
   ... a third option, one that I quite like, is the idea that you
   can create a new mediastream via a constructor
   ... getUserMedia connect the object to a source
   ... constraints are then attached directly to tracks
   ... there is currently a sort of a mismatch between where the
   constraints are set and where they take effects
   ... no backwards compatibility option, except if do tricks with
   overloading

   stefanh: we had discussions around something related — allowing
   the IVR use case

   martin: yes, there are use cases where you wouldn't need to
   attach to an actual media source
   ... it could be linked to a made up mediastream

   jim: does that mean DMTF could be sent without the user giving
   consent

   adambe: also, This enables the developer to request more than
   one device of a certain type at a time (we currently limit a
   gUM() call to one audio device and one video device)

   martin: I like this because it is compatible with the model we
   have developed, and with where Travis' proposal is going

   ekr: [presenting option 4, slide 7]
   ... one problem is that we're making the simple case hard in
   favor of the hard case
   ... also, I'm not sure it is actually solving our problem
   ... without having selected a particular device, how can you
   negotiate the proper SDP?
   ... you don't get to know e.g. the proper codec without knowing
   the device
   ... if the app really wants to get ahead of this curve, and
   indicate what's needed to PeerConnection
   ... the app can indicate that it doesn't know@@@

   ->
   [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/20
   12Dec/0042.html EKR's idea for getUserMedia

     [15]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Dec/0042.html

   martin: it seems you're describing an overload for option3

   ekr: you're suggesting you could pass a stream object as a
   parameter instead of a constraint object

   martin: the advantage of that is that we get the DMTF use case
   (although I'm not particularly excited about it, we would get
   both)
   ... otherwise, EKR's proposal doesn't let one create a stream
   to send DMTF without a device attached

   Jim: what about a stream built from a file, could you do that
   without permission?

   martin: we don't have that yet

   adambe: you would still need to get permission to get the file
   though

   travis: for a file, I would assume you would need to have a
   constraint indicating to look for a file rather than a device
   ... and then getUserMedia would suggest a file rather than a
   source

   <martin> my apologies, I will re-enter queue

   <ekr> One question is do we want to be able to replace streams

   [I'll note that generating mediastream from various sources is
   something that will be useful in many other ways]

   <ekr> Like, what do you do when the user changes the camera

   <ekr> jesup++

   jesup|laptop: this is similar to the placeholder concept

   scribe: it's important to me: common use case is the mute/pause
   where you want to replace with a slate or a pre-recorded video
   ... also linked to the capture from file (that you can do
   through captureVideoTillEnded in our stuff)
   ... so it doesn't necessarily to be linked to getUserMedia

   gmandyam: re option 2, when you say extra arguments to gUM

   gmandyam: could one of the args be peerIdentity=true that ekr
   suggested during TPAC
   ... could this also be linked to consent to a muted stream?

   martin: I think this covers all of the existing constraints we
   would have
   ... thinking to the peerIdenity constraint, this is absolutely
   essential
   ... what randell was talking about wrt
   captureStreamUntilEnded(), that's a perfect way to other ways
   mediastream can be handled

   <burn> +1 martin

   martin: I think getUserMedia would be better limited to *user*
   media, and have other APIs for other sources

   +1

   <adambe> +1 martin

   ekr: the point that jesup just raised is very important
   ... it's important to be able to replace streams
   ... it's not clear to me how to do that with martin+travis
   proposals

   <martin> Swapping streams should be possible, though in many
   cases it could require a renegotiation. I'm not sure that I
   like ekr's proposal.

   <ekr> I'm using Opus!

   ekr: it needs to be worked out, or it's something to hold
   against it

   <ekr> just saying :)

   martin: swapping a stream is fairly important, so we should
   look at fixing that somehow
   ... peer connection might be the mechanism

   stefanh: how do we conclude this discussion?

   <martin> for <video>, it's easy, just set <video>.src to a new
   value; pc.replaceStream sounds feasible

   hta: option4 is do nothing, option3 is radical
   ... combining both seems hard

   martin: I think it's doable

   ekr: should we try to hash something out together?
   ... I don't want to side on option3 until I see this dealt out
   with

   <scribe> ACTION: martin to look at combning sync gUM option 3
   and 4 [recorded in
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/06-mediacap-minutes.html#action01
   ]

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find martin. You can review and
   register nicknames at
   <[17]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/mediacap/track/users>.

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/mediacap/track/users%3E.

Recording proposal

   stefanh: I would like to make an official FPWD out of the
   proposal Jim has been working on

   travis: I support that

   ekr: @@@

   ekr: can we have a CfC on this?

   gmandyam: I think another revision of the document is necessary
   ... I don't want to see it go FPWD until then
   ... due to the call for exclusion

   hta: your objections were about file vs blob

   gmandyam: no, I sent another round of comments this morning
   ... I don't think we're far away
   ... I don't think the current is suitable for FPWD

   stefanh: but would you oppose making it an editors draft?

   gmandyam: not at all

   stefanh: so let's make it an editors draft

   Travis: +1 on making it an official draft

   <martin> +1 travis

   Travis: I would also like to make it so that the recorder can
   set width/height as per our previous discussion

   jim: would that be a setting?

   travis: I don't know yet

   hta: I see a constraint

   travis: setting is more user-friendly :)

Moving forward with getUserMedia

   hta: I'd like to see something stable on which we can build
   upon
   ... if we think we have all the capabilities we need in gUM
   ... with tracks and setting changes
   ... we have a usable functionality set
   ... So what I would like to do is to get all that stuff in the
   document before the new gregorian year
   ... and send out a call after the new year, spending a month
   nailing the various remaining issues and nits
   ... trying to solve as many as possible in the list before the
   F2F
   ... then hammering as many as we could during the F2F
   ... and then go to LC
   ... This depends on doing some heavy editing before the new
   year, including Travis's proposal which should be ready around
   Dec 20
   ... I think that's the fastest we can do, and it would be
   beneficial for people shipping implementations to get stability
   on this piece
   ... I have buy-ins from the editors to spend significant time
   on this before Christmas

   ekr: that sounds like sci-fi to me

   <martin> +1 to ekr

   ekr: we're entering a period when nobody does anything

   <juberti> +1

   travis: I'm a little skeptical, but I'm sure I can have a new
   iteration that addresses the various points that have been
   raised
   ... but then it needs to be integrated, which I don't know how
   much time it will require

   <ekr> so dan will have time right at the time that travis is
   done :)

   dan: I have some time until the 18th, and some time around the
   end of December

   <ekr> sorry, will be busy right when travis is done

   dan: so I can have some of the changes before christmas, and
   the constraints and settings end of Dec

   Jim: I also have time around christmas if needed
   ... but there is still a lot of work around error conditions
   ... I would like to see who is interested in helping on that

   hta: we did have a proposal from Anant on error processing
   ... but we do need to nail the details

   Travis: I'd like to participate in that conversation as well

   jim: should we do that on the list and see how far we can go?

   travis: yes

   gmandyam: +1

   jim: but I would be surprised if we can get it done and
   integrated before Dec 30?

   dan: I'll have time; but if the proposals aren't ready, that
   won't help :)

   hta: so I have permission to hound you to get consensus on this
   :)

   Travis: as you've been empowered by the Power That Be
   ... I'll get to it as it is still fresh in my mind and try to
   get it out early

   stefanh: sounds like we have a plan, if somewhat ambitious :)

   hta: let's try it!

F2F meeting

   stefanh: there will be a 3 days F2F meeting, half IETF/half W3C
   ... half of Tuesday would be used for Media Capture
   ... and the following half day would be for WebRTC
   ... if our gUM plan works out, we can use some of the remaining
   time to resolve some of the outstanding issues
   ... what do you think of that approach?

   jim: sounds reasonable. Wasn't there complaints about splitting
   days in half?

   hta: not complaints as much as statements that we should nail
   down the schedule early

   <stefanh> MediaCap on Tuesday Feb 5 (half day) is the proposal

   ekr: I would really appreciate if the chairs could provide
   agendas as soon as possible

   martin: I think part of our WebRTC call next week should nail
   the agenda of the F2F

   ekr: one potential objection to that split is if we have to
   drop everything on the floor while in the middle of a W3C
   discussion because we need to switch to IETF

   stefanh: one of the potential issue is if someone comes only
   for media capture
   ... we need to provide them with a schedule plan

   gmandyam: one thing I don't want to see happen is things
   discussed in WebRTC that are relevant to Media Capture
   ... I think the meeting should be officially a joint meeting
   between WebRTC and the Media Capture Task Force

   hta: the difficulty is that a lot of things in WebRTC are
   relevant to Media Capture

   gmandyam: don't disagree, but I think for instance ekr's
   presentation at TPAc should have been considered Media Capture
   stuff rather than WebRTC

   travis: that stresses the need for setting the agenda early and
   clearly

   <ekr> No! Don't disagree with me!

   burn: I want to make sure there is time left on the agenda to
   discuss things that get raised in one of the context in the
   other

   <gmandyam> Agree with Dan

   burn: that justifies the alternative format

   hta: flexibility is good

   [adjourneð]

   <martin> and no thanks for the progress we made :(

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: martin to create proposal for combining options 3
   and 4 [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/06-mediacap-minutes.html#action02
   ]
   [NEW] ACTION: martin to look at combning sync gUM option 3 and
   4 [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2012/12/06-mediacap-minutes.html#action01
   ]

   [End of minutes]
Received on Monday, 21 January 2013 08:31:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:03 GMT