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

Re: minutes of 2009-09-23 teleconference

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:46:21 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830909230446y69390db0r902f64e651fdea66@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
I thought we were going to mandate the <unit> part of the range headers?

Regards,
Silvia.

2009/9/23 RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>:
> Dear all,
>
> [Apologies for my sudden drop, fire trials in the building have unexpectedly
> close power supply and disconnect us from the network, impacting internet
> connexion and phone (because of vo-ip) :-(]
>
> The full minutes are available for review at
> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html (and in text format
> below).
>
> I think the main resolution taken concern the syntax for Range and
> Content-Range headers. I have slightly updated the syntax as:
>
> †Range: <dimension> [':' <unit>] '=' <start-pos> - <end-pos>
>
> †Content-Range: <dimension> [':' <unit>] ' ' <real-start-pos> '-'
> <real-end-pos> '/' (<instance-length> / "*" )
>
> also at
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/WG_Resolutions#Media_Fragment_Headers
>
> Note that I follow the version 07 of the HTTBis draft that says that the
> instance-length could also be '*' in the Content-Range response, meaning:
>
> † The header SHOULD indicate the total length of the full entity-body,
> † unless this length is unknown or difficult to determine. †The
> † asterisk "*" character means that the instance-length is unknown at
> † the time when the response was generated.
>
> Feel free to shout if you have any objections.
>
> I also understand from the minutes that we still need to discuss how will
> handle media fragments for the 'track' and 'name' dimensions, and in
> particular which headers should we use. I understand also that it is less of
> priority as we should first get quickly the draft out for the two other
> numerical dimensions. I will write this topic in the forthcoming agendas of
> our telecon.
> Cheers.
>
> †Erik & RaphaŽl
>
> ------
> † [1]W3C
> † † †[1] http://www.w3.org/
> † † † † † † † † † † † † † † † - DRAFT -
> † † † † † † Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
> 23 Sep 2009
> † [2]Agenda
> † † †[2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0129.html
> † See also: [3]IRC log
> † † †[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-irc
> Attendees
> † Present
> † † † † †Conrad, Jack, Michael, Silvia, Raphael, Thierry, Yves, Erik
> † Regrets
> † Chair
> † † † † †Erik, Raphael
> † Scribe
> † † † † †jackjansen
> Contents
>
> † † * [4]Topics
> † † † † 1. [5]1 admin
> † † † † 2. [6]2 UC & requirements
> † † † † 3. [7]3 specification
> † † † † 4. [8]4, test cases
> † † † † 5. [9]5 issues
> † † * [10]Summary of Action Items
> † † _________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> † <trackbot> Date: 23 September 2009
>
> † <raphael> Scribe: jackjansen
>
> † <raphael> Scrinenick: jackjansen
>
> † <raphael> scribenick: jackjansen
>
> 1 admin
>
> † <raphael> Minutes telecon:
> † [11]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html
>
> † † [11] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html
>
> † <raphael> Minutes F2F:
> † [12]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-minutes.html and
> † [13]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/18-mediafrag-minutes.html
>
> † † [12] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-minutes.html
> † † [13] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/18-mediafrag-minutes.html
>
> † <mhausenblas> +1
>
> † <raphael> +1
>
> † Raphael: minutes approved
>
> † <silvia> +1
>
> † Thierry: action-111 is ongoing
>
> 2 UC & requirements
>
> † Raphael: 105 and 106 are ongoing, will try to do this afternoon
>
> † <raphael> ACTION-95?
>
> † <trackbot> ACTION-95 -- Michael Hausenblas to review ALL UC with a
> † mobile hat on and check whether these sufficiently cover the mobile
> † usage -- due 2009-09-02 -- OPEN
>
> † <trackbot>
> † [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/95
>
> † † [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/95
>
> † Michael: on 95 there seem to be no issues with mobile
>
> † RESOLUTION: 95, no special issues for mobile
>
> † <raphael> Side Conditions are in 2 documents:
> † [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-req
> † s/#side-conditions
>
> † † [15]
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#side-conditions
>
> † <raphael> which document should it be?
>
> † <raphael> close ACTION-95
>
> † <trackbot> ACTION-95 Review ALL UC with a mobile hat on and check
> † whether these sufficiently cover the mobile usage closed
>
> † <raphael> Jack: I agree it should be in one document, no preference
>
> † Raphael: tends to think its requirement doc
>
> † <mhausenblas> +1
>
> † <scribe> ACTION: Raphael to move section to requirements doc only
> † [recorded in
> † [16]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
>
> † <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Raphael
>
> † <raphael> Silvia: about your suggestion of removing the side
> † conditions section in one of the two document
>
> † <scribe> ACTION: troncy to move section to requirements doc only
> † [recorded in
> † [17]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]
>
> † <trackbot> Created ACTION-113 - Move section to requirements doc
> † only [on RaphaŽl Troncy - due 2009-09-30].
>
> † <raphael> ... we will remove it from the spec and keep it in the
> † requirements doc
>
> † <silvia> +1
>
> 3 specification
>
> † <raphael> ACTION-109?
>
> † <trackbot> ACTION-109 -- Erik Mannens to and Davy to write a
> † paragraph in the documents to explain why we don't include this
> † feature in the spec (rationale) based on the group analysis (impact
> † both req and spec documents) -- due 2009-09-24 -- OPEN
>
> † <trackbot>
> † [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/109
>
> † † [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/109
>
> † <raphael> Yes, Silvia, this is Erik action we are talking about
>
> † Erik: 109 will be done this week
>
> † <raphael> ACTION-110?
>
> † <trackbot> ACTION-110 -- Silvia Pfeiffer to silvia to Draft a
> † summary starting from her blog post and the 17/09/2009 IRC minutes
> † in the document (role of ? and #) -- due 2009-09-24 -- OPEN
>
> † <trackbot>
> † [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/110
>
> † † [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/110
>
> † <silvia> 110 will be done this week
>
> † <raphael> ... what's the status of this action?
>
> † <silvia> not done yet
>
> † Silvia: 110 also this week
>
> † Raphael: let's talk about range syntax
>
> † <raphael>
> † [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Se
> † p/0133.html
>
> † † [20]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0133.html
>
> † <silvia> I just a few minutes ago sent an update on that discussion
>
> † <silvia>
> † [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Se
> † p/0135.html
>
> † † [21]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0135.html
>
> † <silvia> does anyone have the specification that Yves pointed out
> † will update the RFC to satisfy the need for other range types?
>
> † <conrad> if we are going to make a spec for time range units, i
> † agree with silvia's proposal that both Range request header and
> † Content-Range response header should use "time:npt" etc.
>
> † <conrad> if we start re-using parsers then we need to have the same
> † syntax constraints in both
>
> † <conrad> eg. commas have a special meaning in headers
>
> † Jack: prefres to stay close to existing http syntax
>
> † <silvia> we are not making any differences to existing http syntax
>
> † Conrad: also syntax in different http headers
>
> † Jack: agrees
>
> † <silvia> the RFC has been reviewed:
> † [22]http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/85
>
> † † [22] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/85
>
> † <silvia> one change was "make name of header value production for
> † "Range" consistent with other headers"
>
> † Raphael: proposed resolution: adopt proposal from Silvia, with both
> † range and content-range
> † ... using dimension:unit
>
> † <raphael> Range: <dimension>[':' <unit>] '=' <start time> - <end
> † time>
>
> † conrad: units not optional
>
> † <Yves> +1 to no optional unit
>
> † +1
>
> † <raphael> Range: <dimension> ':' <unit> '=' <start time> - <end
> † time>
>
> † <raphael> same for Content-Range
>
> † <silvia> why no optional unit?
>
> † <conrad> if any of the time are allowed to have frame offsets, the
> † unit must be there
>
> † Raphael: revised proposal: units not optional, same for
> † content-range
>
> † <raphael> +1 for this proposal
>
> † <raphael> silvia, if the offset is at the frame precision, then unit
> † is mandatory
>
> † <Yves> silvia, because machines are not humans
>
> † beep beep
>
> † <raphael> Silvia, no objection ?
>
> † <silvia> no, I am not too worried about optional/non-optional unit
> † in Range
>
> † <silvia> +1
>
> † <silvia> just curious about reasoning :)
>
> † <mhausenblas> +1
>
> † RESOLUTION: range and unit are non-optional in content-range and
> † range headers
>
> † <silvia> btw: the draft RFC update is here
> † [23]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-07#page-8
>
> † † [23] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-07#page-8
>
> † Raphael: next, should we use range for addressing tracks?
>
> † <raphael>
> † [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Server-parsed_Fra
> † gments
>
> † † [24]
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Server-parsed_Fragments
>
> † <conrad> silvia: what is your response about use of range for track?
>
> † Raphael: Conrad wants new header, Silvia wants to reuse range
>
> † Yves: range header is mainly numeric
>
> † <silvia> I wonder why we need a different header for that - let me
> † read up on the email thread
>
> † Yves: we will wait for raphael to return
>
> † <silvia> so, Yves, do you agree about creating a new "Fragment:"
> † header for tracks?
>
> † <conrad> you can't take an interval of track names, or describe the
> † instance-length for Content-Range
>
> † We will continue.
>
> † <silvia> you could if the tracks were ordered
>
> † <silvia> then the "instance-length" could be the number of tracks
>
> † Yves: if we have it in range, would we need resolver to map track
> † names to byte ranges?
>
> † <silvia> we need such a resolver for time, too
>
> † <conrad> silvia: how do you request "t=20/20&track=audio" as a Range
> † header, and how do you make the Content-Range response?
>
> † Yves: anyone has any response to my question?
>
> † <silvia> multiple Range headers
>
> † Jack: no opinion
>
> † <silvia> multiple Content-Range response headers
>
> † <Yves> multiple content ranges are allowed
>
> † Yves: there is a similarity to what we said about aspect ratio
>
> † <Yves> is track as a #fragment really required?
>
> † <silvia> can you explain the similarity that you see?
>
> † <Yves> when a URI can be contructed with the relevantstarting/ending
> † time
>
> † Should we table this until next week, silvia?
>
> † <Yves> having named tracks instead of numeric value adds unnecessary
> † complexity that requires a resolver, or a way to enumerate all the
> † tracks in order
>
> † <silvia> I do believe the track and also the id issues aren't fully
> † understood yet
>
> † <silvia> I also believe that it is good to focus on solving the
> † "time" specification and protocol procedure now, but the others can
> † wait a bit
>
> † <conrad> Yves, that relates to ISSUE-4
>
> † <silvia> we could indeed keep discussing this on the mailing list
> † until we have the spec for "time" finalised
>
> † Yves: table, discuss on mail or next week.
>
> 4, test cases
>
> † <mhausenblas>
> † [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCases
>
> † † [25] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCases
>
> † Michael: on action 93, it doesn't seem to affect anything
>
> † RESOLUTION: action-93, no test cases were affected
>
> † <mhausenblas> close ACTION-93
>
> † <trackbot> ACTION-93 Revisit the TC and see which are effected by
> † the temporal-optional-comma-decision closed
>
> † Michael: remove test case 4, as aspect ratio is gone
>
> † <Yves> +1
>
> † ACTION on Michael to remove it
>
> † <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
>
> † ACTION Michael to remove test case 4
>
> † <trackbot> Created ACTION-114 - Remove test case 4 [on Michael
> † Hausenblas - due 2009-09-30].
>
> † <mhausenblas> state semantics
> † [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/mftc
>
> † † [26] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/mftc
>
> † Michael: on to action 108
>
> † <mhausenblas> Michael: empty means that it is defined but yields
> † empty representation
>
> † Michael: looking at naming of test cases, empty versus undefined
> † ... is inconsistent, will clean it up
> † ... empty means - defined, but yields empty representation
>
> † <mhausenblas> two main categories: defined or undefined
>
> † Michael: undefined means - no range given
>
> † <mhausenblas> empty is defined, but yields empty representation
>
> † ACTION Michael to come up with categorization of test cases wrt
> † empty, undefined, etc
>
> † <trackbot> Created ACTION-115 - Come up with categorization of test
> † cases wrt empty, undefined, etc [on Michael Hausenblas - due
> † 2009-09-30].
>
> 5 issues
>
> † Jack: no idea on issue 6
>
> † Yves: table it until Raphael is back
>
> † Tves: let's adjourn the meeting
>
> † ok, thanks!
>
> † Too many different syntaxes with rrsagent and zakim:-)
>
> † <Yves> yeah we should unify those ;)
>
> † <Yves> trackbot, end telcon
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
> † [NEW] ACTION: Raphael to move section to requirements doc only
> † [recorded in
> † [27]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
> † [NEW] ACTION: troncy to move section to requirements doc only
> † [recorded in
> † [28]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]
>
> † [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.cwi.nl/~troncy/
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 11:47:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:34 GMT