W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > July 2010

minutes of 2010-07-07 teleconference

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:17:10 +0200
Message-ID: <4C347046.3070408@eurecom.fr>
To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Dear all,

The minutes of today's telecon are available for review at
http://www.w3.org/2010/07/07-mediafrag-minutes.html (and in text format
below).

We have mainly discussed the issue triggered by Philip which is ongoing.
No resolution has been taken, we need more input from the group. Next 
telecon will be on August 25th.
Have a good summer break.
Cheers.

   RaphaŽl

----------
    [1]W3C
       [1] http://www.w3.org/
              Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
07 Jul 2010
    [2]Agenda
       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Jul/0023.html
    See also: [3]IRC log
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/07/07-mediafrag-irc
Attendees
    Present
           Raphael, Davy, Philip, Yves
    Regrets
           Silvia, Erik, Jack
    Chair
           raphael
    Scribe
           raphael
Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]1. Admin
          2. [6]2. Specification
          3. [7]3. Save as Use Case
          4. [8]4. AOB
      * [9]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <trackbot> Date: 07 July 2010

    <foolip> the bridge just keeps hanging up on me

    <foolip> UK and France

    <foolip> ok, that worked

1. Admin

    Approved minutes of past telecon

    [10]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/23-mediafrag-minutes.html

      [10] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/23-mediafrag-minutes.html

    [11]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/30-mediafrag-minutes.html

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/30-mediafrag-minutes.html

    +1

    <dvdeurse> +1

    minutes accepted

    <foolip> +1

    This will be last telecon for this summer

    Next telecon will be 25/08

    <scribe> scribe: raphael

    <scribe> scribenick: raphael

2. Specification

    Discussion about parsing name values pairs

    Philip: name values pairs unknown should it be ignored ?
    ... and how we manage percent-decoding

    <Yves>
    [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Ju
    l/0024.html

      [12] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Jul/0024.html

    <Yves> axissegment = anysegment *( "&" anysegment )

    Philip: my intention is to say that anysegment is timesegment,
    spacefragment, trackfragment, or unknown fragment

    <Yves> [13]http://www.example.com/foo.mov#foo=bar

      [13] http://www.example.com/foo.mov#foo=bar

    Philip: but this does not work either since there is the problem of
    percent decoding
    ... I'm fine with [14]http://www.example.com/foo.mov#foo=bar not be
    a media fragment

      [14] http://www.example.com/foo.mov#foo=bar

    Yves: the issue is more if the t= is percent encoded
    ... I suggest to do this first step normalization step, doing at
    least percent-decoding of characters that are not delims,
    sub-delims, and other non-safe characters.

    Philip: problem of the + sign in the timezone
    ... it seems to me very complex while what I propose seems simpler
    ... the spec is currently contradictory
    ... since the grammar says that arbitrary name value pairs is not
    valid

    Raphael: how do you manage extensibility

    Yves: do we really want extensibility?
    ... I'm not sure it is desirable

    Silvia: her position "I personally believe they should be valid,
    since our discussion was

    always that we would ignore name-value parameters that the UA (or
    the

    server) doesn't understand.

    scribe: the example was:
    [15]http://www.example.com/football.movie#t=10,20&action=track

      [15] http://www.example.com/football.movie#t=10

    Yves: I'm not for being completely open to extensibility

    Philip: you speculate a lot on what people could add after the # but
    should we really care about this ?

    Raphael: I notice clearly a disagreement in the group currently

    Yves's position is that for any unknow name values pair, the entire
    fragment sould be ignored

    scribe: which is not clearly the position of Philip, and I think not
    what Silvia is thinking too

    Davy: I understand Yves'as argument about I'm also concerned by the
    lack of forward compatibility

    Philip: the current syntax is too strong on my opinion, so I don't
    want to have it normative

    Yves: it is to be on the safe side for me to forbid unknown name
    value pairs

    Raphael: other problem is %-decoding
    ... to we want to allow %-encode of t

    Philip: yes, but then you're generic and don't need to treat track
    and id as special cases

    <Yves> [16]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt => 2.4. When to
    Encode or Decode

      [16] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt

    Yves: I suggest to add a paragraph in section 4.1
    ... explaining a normalization step

    <Yves> %74=10,20

    <Yves> normlziation phase => t=10,20

    <Yves> track=foo%3dbar

    <Yves> normalization phase => track=foo%3dbar

    <Yves> track foo%3dbar

    <Yves> foo=bar

    Philip: I don't see the value of this pre-process step

    Yves: we first need to extract the name value pairs
    ... before making the URI %-decoding step

    Philip: we should first do parsing of arbitrary name value pairs
    ... and then process those name value pairs
    ... we then interpret the unicode syntax that results of the
    %-decoding of those pairs

    <davy> +1 to Philip, this is also the way we parse fragments in our
    player

    Yves: I agree that this is a way to do it ... but this will not be
    my way, I would implement it differently

    close ACTION-182

    <trackbot> ACTION-182 Include summary into wiki page closed

3. Save as Use Case

    <foolip> raphael, I have to run for lunch, are we done discussing
    "my" issue?

    yes foolip, until September where we will discuss the issue again

    <foolip> ok, thanks all!

    scribe: and before on the mailing list

    Davy: I think we should save the whole media

    Yves: save as the whole page ... would mean to save the html, the
    css, and the media _fragment_ (only the bytes downloaded)
    ... save as the media would mean save the entire media file

    Chris question: Is it expected that for every URL request with a
    fragment that matches

    the syntax of media fragments that the user agent will attempt to
    send

    the Range header?

    YES

    I'm going through
    [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Ju
    n/0099.html

      [17] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Jun/0099.html

4. AOB

    I will answer Chris

Summary of Action Items

    [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 Wednesday, 7 July 2010 12:19:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:39 GMT