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

minutes of 2010-11-17 teleconference

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:08:44 +0100
Message-ID: <4CECC80C.5040707@eurecom.fr>
To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Dear all,

The minutes of last week's telecon are available for review at 
http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-mediafrag-minutes.html (and in text format
below).

Best regards,

   RaphaŽl

------------
    [1]W3C
       [1] http://www.w3.org/
              Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
17 Nov 2010
    [2]Agenda
       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Nov/0029.html
    See also: [3]IRC log
       [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-mediafrag-irc

Attendees
    Present
           Thomas, Yves, Erik, Raphael, Silvia_(irc), Philip_(irc)
    Regrets
           Davy
    Chair
           Raphael
    Scribe
           Raphael

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]1. Admin
          2. [6]2. Media Fragment Specification
          3. [7]3. Media fragments URI on web page
          4. [8]4. AOB
      * [9]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

    <trackbot> Date: 17 November 2010

    trackbot, start telecon

    <trackbot> Meeting: Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference

    <trackbot> Date: 17 November 2010

    <tomayac> hamburg, germany, yes

1. Admin

    <scribe> Scribe: Raphael

    <scribe> Scribenick: raphael

    PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 7th F2F meeting:

    - [10]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-mediafrag-minutes.html

      [10] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/01-mediafrag-minutes.html

    - [11]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/02-mediafrag-minutes.html

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/02-mediafrag-minutes.html

    ?

    <erik> +1 (but am still reading it though :)

    +1

    <tomayac> pass ;-)

    <Yves> +1

    minutes accepted

2. Media Fragment Specification

    For IBBT ...

    ACTION-192?

    <trackbot> ACTION-192 -- Davy Van Deursen to update the
    specification to state what the processing should do when media
    fragments request (time dimension) does not match exactly how the
    media item has been encoded -- due 2010-11-08 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [12]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/192

      [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/192

    ACTION-193?

    <trackbot> ACTION-193 -- Erik Mannens to make a schema for the
    server redirect recipe -- due 2010-11-08 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/193

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/193

    ACTION-195?

    <trackbot> ACTION-195 -- Davy Van Deursen to add a paragraph in the
    section 7.1 to specify that video, audio, img or any href is all
    treated similarly (range request issued when facing a media
    fragment) -- due 2010-11-08 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/195

      [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/195

    ACTION-191?

    <trackbot> ACTION-191 -- Yves Lafon to update the production rules
    of the time dimension with the npt format for making the hours
    optional -- due 2010-11-08 -- OPEN

    <trackbot>
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/191

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/191

    Yves started to do it during the f2f meeting, needs to add a
    sentence in the spec

    ISSUE-19?

    <trackbot> ISSUE-19 -- Parsing must be defined normatively in the MF
    spec itself -- open

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

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/19

    Philip has proposed a number of patches, see result at
    [17]http://people.opera.com/philipj/2010/11/04/media-fragments-spec/
    overview.html

      [17] 
http://people.opera.com/philipj/2010/11/04/media-fragments-spec/overview.html

    Yves has discussed this with Philip which sort of outdate this
    proposal

    Yves: the result is that we should keep the grammar as it is, + some
    clarification text on the purpose of the grammar
    ... + a normative algorithm for parsing
    ... we need consensus and approval from Jack, Silvia, and Davy at
    least in the group + feedback from the implementers

    <silvia> is the proposal formally specified somewhere?

    <silvia> I'm probably ok with it but don't want to give a blind vote

    Raphael: what this clarification text should express?

    <Yves> the purpose of the grammar is to describe the "normal"
    syntax, ie: the one that should be created

    <Yves> ie: it is not the parsing rules

    Raphael: where we should write this ?

    Yves: at the beginning of section 4 and appendix D
    ... as a reminder

    <scribe> ACTION: raphael to add a clarification text regarding the
    purpose of the grammar [recorded in
    [18]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - raphael

    <scribe> ACTION: troncy to add a clarification text regarding the
    purpose of the grammar [recorded in
    [19]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-199 - Add a clarification text regarding
    the purpose of the grammar [on RaphaŽl Troncy - due 2010-11-24].

    Raphael: regarding the parsing algorithm

    Yves: back to a very detailed description of the algorithm
    ... I would like to read it crisp and procedural
    ... we need an agreement that the parsing algorithm become normative
    ... I would agree that given this clarification of role, the
    algorithm become normative

    Erik: I agree too

    Silvia, would you have any objection of having a detailed parsing
    algorithm of a media fragment URI nomative in the spec instead of an
    annex?

    Two versions of the algorithm

    scribe: 1/
    [20]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spe
    c/#processing-uri-syntax
    ... 2/
    [21]http://people.opera.com/philipj/2010/11/04/media-fragments-spec/
    overview.html#processing-name-value-components
    ... and
    [22]http://people.opera.com/philipj/2010/11/04/media-fragments-spec/
    overview.html#processing-name-value-components
    ... and
    [23]http://people.opera.com/philipj/2010/11/04/media-fragments-spec/
    overview.html#processing-name-value-lists

      [20] 
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#processing-uri-syntax
      [21] 
http://people.opera.com/philipj/2010/11/04/media-fragments-spec/overview.html#processing-name-value-components
      [22] 
http://people.opera.com/philipj/2010/11/04/media-fragments-spec/overview.html#processing-name-value-components
      [23] 
http://people.opera.com/philipj/2010/11/04/media-fragments-spec/overview.html#processing-name-value-lists

    <silvia> no objection here

    Raphael: I agree to ask Philip to put which version he prefers
    ... the only contentious issue might be: 2.

    2. Otherwise, the name-value pair does not represent a media
    fragment dimension. Validators should emit a warning. User agents
    must ignore the name-value pair.

    Note: Because the name-value pairs are processed in order, the last
    valid occurence of any dimension is the one that is used.

    Raphael: Validators should perhaps emit an error rather a warning ?
    ... the processing order of the dimensions and whether parsing
    should be relaxed or not in case of multiple occurences of the same
    dimension (except track)

    <scribe> ACTION: troncy to send a proposal to close ISSUE-19 that
    consists in: clarification text + normative parsing algorithm
    [recorded in
    [24]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-200 - Send a proposal to close ISSUE-19
    that consists in: clarification text + normative parsing algorithm
    [on RaphaŽl Troncy - due 2010-11-24].

    <foolip> I prefer my latest version that uses the namevalues syntax

    great, thanks Philip, we will use this one then :-)

3. Media fragments URI on web page

    Raphael: started by a thread from Silvia
    ... discussed at the F2F meeting:
    [25]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/02-mediafrag-minutes.html#item05
    ... lead to the notion of optimistic use of the Range header, only
    for the 'second' unit
    ... it cannot be done for any other way for getting part of the
    content

      [25] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/02-mediafrag-minutes.html#item05

    <silvia> (except that my email was about something completely
    different ;-)

    <Yves> yeah I think Silvia's email was about using the html fragment
    for video

    <Yves> which by default is => no (ie: it's per page, so you can't
    generalize this)

    <silvia> it was not to become normative - the idea is to propose a
    syntax that people can choose to make use of

    <silvia> because the html URI is much more important for most video
    on the web than the video URI

    Yves: there are 2 orthogonal issues
    ... the fragment applies to ONE resource you're retrieving
    ... if you want the fragment on the page be applied to the video
    element on that page, this is your javascript that can do that,
    nothing to put in the spec
    ... the other issue of optimistic use of the Range header, Philip
    states that this is up to the URI spec to change
    ... I quote: "The semantics of the fragment identifier is defined by
    each MIME type registration. Before we know the type, we can't
    assume anything. Therefore, the only possibility is if the
    URL/URI/IRI spec itself states that #t=1 has some semantics for
    *all* types and that this should cause headers Foo and Bar to be
    sent. However, I truly doubt we'll see media-specific things like
    this put into URL/URI/IRI, it's seems like a gigantic layering
    violat

    <silvia> as I said: the idea is to give a Web developer that wants
    to do media fragments on a Web page a recommendation for how to do
    the URI structure on their page - they still have to implement it
    themselves, it's just handy to agree on the same approach

    <silvia> no need for more Range headers, or an implementation in
    browsers or anything - just a helping hand for Web developers

    Raphael: I agree silvia, and I strongly recommend to add a new
    Appendix for what you propose, note to developers :-)

    <foolip> Agreed, as long as there's no change in UA behavior for
    #t=1 for HTML I'm fine with recommending web developers to use the
    syntax

    <silvia> btw: all the video hosting sites already have such
    approaches in the URIs so it's not theoretic

    <Yves> I agree that we can't assume anything, and we shouldn't break
    any layer, but if we know enogh context, using Range request with a
    unit that can only be applied to the media type we are targeting
    (and will default to normal behaviour for all the others)

    Silvia, would you like to have an action to write a paragraph, note
    to developers, that they can easily implement a javascript to
    forward the hash on the URI to the video element?

    <Yves> is a (not nice) possible optimisation

    <silvia> yup, no problem

    <silvia> just don't know when I'll get around to it :)

    <Yves> context should be that URI is in a <video> tag

    <silvia> sure

    <scribe> ACTION: Silvia to write a paragraph, note to developers,
    that they can easily implement a javascript to forward the hash on
    the URI to the video element [recorded in
    [26]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action04]

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-201 - Write a paragraph, note to
    developers, that they can easily implement a javascript to forward
    the hash on the URI to the video element [on Silvia Pfeiffer - due
    2010-11-24].

    Raphael: it is part of my action to clarify the use of optimistic
    use of Range header optimization in case we are in the right context
    <audio> or <video> element

4. AOB

    Erik: what is the schedule?

    <Yves> erik,
    [27]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#Reports

      [27] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#Reports

    Raphael: finish all actions in the tracker by the end of the month,
    so we can transition to CR
    ... have a telecon about test cases afterwards, for preparing the
    exit CR stage

    <erik> horay for Thomas!

    <tomayac> thanks :-)

    <tomayac> [28]http://tomayac.com/semwebvid/

      [28] http://tomayac.com/semwebvid/

    Raphael: we have discussed Ken Harrenstien
    ... from YouTube

    <tomayac> funny enough ken and me have already been in contact with
    regards to YT closed captions. i'll catch up with him and let him
    know about recent developments.

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: raphael to add a clarification text regarding the
    purpose of the grammar [recorded in
    [29]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: Silvia to write a paragraph, note to developers, that
    they can easily implement a javascript to forward the hash on the
    URI to the video element [recorded in
    [30]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action04]
    [NEW] ACTION: troncy to add a clarification text regarding the
    purpose of the grammar [recorded in
    [31]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]
    [NEW] ACTION: troncy to send a proposal to close ISSUE-19 that
    consists in: clarification text + normative parsing algorithm
    [recorded in
    [32]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]

    [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, 24 November 2010 08:12:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:40 GMT