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: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:42:35 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830909241742r22147ae5i6a8888891b4165e5@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi all,

I have taken the liberty to make some changes to our specifications
and requirements documents.

Requirements doc:
* I have made the "aspect ratio" an out-of-scope use case and added an
explanation why (I think this closes ACTION-109 actually)
* I have edited the introduction section to explain what this is a
requirements document for and removed everything that relates to the
specification in the introduction
* I have added a bib reference to the specification document

Specification doc:
* I have removed the "side conditions" section (that would close ACTION-113)
* I have edited the introduction section and added a reference to the
requirements document
* I have added a bib reference to the requirements document

Further I went through some of the open issues and actions and I would
suggest to add something to Action 71,
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/71 : Michael
to "Investigate whether he could have an implementation in Javascript
that does the client-side media fragments parsing"
-> I think the demo that I made at
http://www.annodex.net/~silvia/itext/mediafrag.html answers that
generally
-> so we need to move this to "Michael to create a javascript library
and include in e.g. jquery"

OK, now onto media fragments <-> query...
This was just preparatory work. :-)

Cheers,
Silvia.

2009/9/23 Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>:
> 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 Friday, 25 September 2009 00:43:40 GMT

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