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

minutes of 2009-09-30 teleconference

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:11:10 +0100
Message-ID: <4B02CB1E.70004@cwi.nl>
To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Dear all,

I just realized that the minutes of our last telecon (07/10/09 sic!) 
have not been sent yet to the mailing list. Here they are ...
Cheers.

   RaphaŽl

-------------
    [1]W3C
       [1] http://www.w3.org/
              Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
07 Oct 2009
    [2]Agenda
       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Oct/0000.html
    See also: [3]IRC log
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/07-mediafrag-irc

Attendees
    Present
           Erik, Raphael, Jack, Yves, Conrad, Davy
    Regrets
           Silvia, Michael
    Chair
           Erik, Raphael
    Scribe
           conrad
Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]1. admin
          2. [6]2. UC & Requirements doc
          3. [7]3. Specification
          4. [8]4. Test Cases
          5. [9]7. AOB
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <trackbot> Date: 07 October 2009

    <raphael> Chair: Erik, Raphael

    <scribe> scribenick: conrad

1. admin

    <raphael> Last week telecon minutes:
    [11]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/30-mediafrag-minutes.html

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/30-mediafrag-minutes.html

    <Yves> +1 to accept minutes

    <erik> +1

    <raphael> +1

    <davy> +1

    RESOLUTION: to accept the minutes of 2009-09-30

    raphael: i have reworked the use case and req documents

2. UC & Requirements doc

    <raphael> ACTIOn-116?

    <trackbot> ACTION-116 -- Davy Van Deursen to davy And Erik to review
    UC & Requirements document before pub -- due 2009-10-07 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/116

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/116

    ACTION-105?

    <trackbot> ACTION-105 -- RaphaŽl Troncy to address all comments and
    write a reply to MAWG -- due 2009-09-16 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/105

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/105

    ACTION-106?

    <trackbot> ACTION-106 -- RaphaŽl Troncy to draft a paragraph
    explaining upfront in the document why we are doing that ...
    justification for the MPEG community -- due 2009-09-16 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/106

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/106

    close action-116

    <trackbot> ACTION-116 Davy And Erik to review UC & Requirements
    document before pub closed

    close action-105

    <trackbot> ACTION-105 Address all comments and write a reply to MAWG
    closed

    close action-106

    <trackbot> ACTION-106 Draft a paragraph explaining upfront in the
    document why we are doing that ... justification for the MPEG
    community closed

    <raphael> Some unanswered questions:
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-req
    s/

      [15] 
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/

    <raphael> Werner suggests we don't use the term "Mask"

    <davy> continuous view?

    <erik> "continous part"?

    <raphael> Replace "mask" by a "single segment"

    jackjansen, just add a statement that we don't want holes

    <raphael> Jack: we don't want holes

    raphael: section 3.1 figure explains context, but the last row
    "example image track" illustrates that we can take a blob of an
    image, but the text doesn't consider this

    raphael, case, eg. spatial regions of images

    phillip suggested we specify that we also support spatial ranges

    jack: what is the difference (from our point of view) between text
    and image track?

    i think the overlapping content is the main thing

    so for temporal addressing there can be multiple text elements which
    match a temporal region

    jack: for this draft perhaps we should only specify audio+video

    and chasing dependencies of previous text elements (ie. working out
    which are active now) can be more difficult than eg. video keyframes

    raphael: we should publish, including these minor changes

    jack: editorial note by silvia is a question to the reader
    ... editorial note by dave singer, needs to be addressed (sec 3.12)?

    "The fallback plan needs to be clarified. We must be able to handle
    the way the # is already used, e.g. in YouTube, without breaking
    what is already working."

    raphael: the wg. has discussed that we need to be
    backwards-compatible with existing implementations as much as
    possible

    eg. youtube syntax, and we are still discussing what the behaviour
    should be

    so is the vague phrasing of compatibility with "widely implemented
    solutions" enough?

    raphael: we have already discussed that eg. the youtube way could be
    a different syntax we specify, with explicity hms

    jack: ok then we should add a sentence about that, and a note to
    suggest that parsers recognize foreign syntax and stay away from it
    ... so if we draft a paragraph and send it to dave, see what he
    thinks

    raphael: ok, but also that is not blocking the publication of
    documents

    <raphael>
    [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-req
    s/

      [16] 
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/

    Proposed to publish documents currently staged at
    [17]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-req
    s/

      [17] 
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/

    <raphael> +1 for publication

    <davy> +1

    <Yves> +1

    <erik> +1

    <jackjansen> +1

    <nessy> +1

    +1

    RESOLUTION: to publish documents currently staged at
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-req
    s/

      [18] 
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/

    3. specification

3. Specification

    action-117?

    <trackbot> ACTION-117 -- RaphaŽl Troncy to review Silvia's summary
    of her blogpost, i.e. the Section 3 of the spec -- due 2009-10-07 --
    OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/117

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/117

    raphael: no progress on 117 and 112, pending comments by silvia

    <raphael> Raphael: suggest to postpone decision on publishing this
    doc to next week

    Raphael: after 117 and 112 are complete, we can think about
    publishing the documents, as they don't currently reflect the
    progress we have made

4. Test Cases

    all actions on test cases are pending

    jackjansen, please notify the mailing list when spec changes are
    made

    nessy: we should implement cvs commit emails etc. etc.

    <nessy> conrad: yes, but we won't have access to the cvs management
    box, I don't hink

    <nessy> Yves would know if that was possible

    <jackjansen> I second silvia's proposal

    usually there is a separate mailing list for cvs-commits, and a
    post-hook added to cvs to mail commit details to that list

    eg. media-fragment-notifications or something like that

    <scribe> ACTION: Yves to request admins to set up a cvs
    notifications mailing list and notifications [recorded in
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/07-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-119 - Request admins to set up a cvs
    notifications mailing list and notifications [on Yves Lafon - due
    2009-10-14].

    <raphael> Silvia, it just meant we agree on your comment today that
    the spec doc is not yet ready for publication

    <raphael> ... but it is pending on my actions

    <raphael> ... when they are done, I think the missing sections will
    be here and the document publishable

    Raphael: AOB?

7. AOB

    Raphael: AOB?

    <nessy> raphael: I agree :)

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Yves to request admins to set up a cvs notifications
    mailing list and notifications [recorded in
    [21]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/07-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]

    [End of minutes]

-- 
RaphaŽl Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des CrÍtes, 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 Tuesday, 17 November 2009 16:11:59 GMT

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