W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 02 December, Telecon 1000 UTC

From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:39:25 +0100
Message-ID: <4B1635CD.80803@cwi.nl>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
CC: public-media-fragment@w3.org, Erik Mannens <erik.mannens@ugent.be>
Dear Philip,

> I don't see the issue of processing requirements (e.g. given by a 
> parsing algorithm) on the agenda, which was the email linked to. As a 
> potential implementor of MF this is the single most important issue, so 
> I hope it will be addressed soon.

This was hidden in (Topic 4):

* Question of MF URI validity by Philip:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Nov/0023.html

... but I agree this is of fundamental importance and should not be 
hidden in the Test Cases topic.
In 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Dec/0009.html 
I suggest to write a new section 5.1 that should address this issue.

> Is it safe to assume that if an email is sent to the list the editor 
> will eventually do something (change the spec, ask for more input or 
> reject the idea) and send a reply by email?

Absolutely! We are a number (hopefully not only me) that watch closely 
the list and make sure all comments are addressed and got a reply. But 
has humans sometimes fail, do not hesitate to re-issue a concern that 
you feel has not been properly addressed.

In this case, I assume you refer to: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Nov/0023.html
   . As ACTION, we need to revise the "Media Fragment Resolution and 
Processing general setup" which I suggest we write down in the section 5.1.
   . Further, you suggest we write down some pseudo-algorithm regarding 
the media fragment parsing. Yves has answered that this would mandate 
one implementation, potentially not the most effective one. We could 
also suggest one algorithm and make this section informative. I suggest 
we discuss that in today's telecon. I'm happy to hear your opinion on 
this list or on IRC.

> I like this method, but if 
> you want spec bugs in a special bug tracker or similar please just point 
> me there and I will comply.

No, we haven't setup bug tracker for this group. Watching the mailing 
list should be enough given the relatively small number of participants.

> Also, do most of the actual discussions in this group happen by 
> teleconference? The mail traffic is 50% about teleconfs, so that's what 
> it seems like from the outside (I am a WG member, but an outsider to the 
> process so far).

I agree that the mail traffic is completely irregular. There are 
sometimes some peaks with some discussion but sometimes the list is 
dormant. The group has not been active (apart Silvia :-) the last 2 
months partially from my fault. Hopefully, the mails sent today will 
revive the discussion.

> Not complaining, just asking.

Thanks for the feedback.
Best regards.

   Raphaël

-- 
Raphaël Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 09:40:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:35 GMT