W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > June 2011

Re: minutes of 2011-06-15 teleconference

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:57:47 +1000
Message-ID: <BANLkTimr0M6OYHGr8=dYNx1hc8wUjDoEcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Double <cdouble@mozilla.com>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Oh! I missed the announcement of Chris with the nightlies. Chris: are
they special nightlies to get from a special location or the normal
version 7 ones? Am I right in assuming that only the time dimension
with npt time works? and only in the address bar or also in the video
element?

Cheers,
Silvia.

2011/6/15 RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>:
> Dear all,
>
> The minutes of today's phone telecon are available for review at
> http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html (and in text format
> below).
>
> In a nutshell:
> †- We resolve to switch back to name the fourth dimension for addressing
> media fragment #id= (instead of #chapter=)
> †- We still aim at transitioning to CR next telecon. Davy has some edits to
> perform this week and I will prepare the diff documents and disposition of
> comments
> †- Yves is in charge to start a new thread regarding the status of the
> section 5.2 and whether this part (considered as exploratory) should be put
> in a separate W3C Note or be kept in the main specification that will go
> Recommendation.
>
> †RaphaŽl
>
> -----------
> † [1]W3C
> † † †[1] http://www.w3.org/
> † † † † † † Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
> 15 Jun 2011
> † [2]Agenda
> † † †[2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2011Jun/0010.html
> † See also: [3]IRC log
> † † †[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-irc
> Attendees
> † Present
> † † † † †Yves, Jack, Davy, Chris, Silvia, Raphael, Erik, Philip, (irc)
> † Regrets
> † † † † †Thomas
> † Chair
> † † † † †Raphael, Erik
> † Scribe
> † † † † †raphael
> Contents
> † † * [4]Topics
> † † † † 1. [5]1. ADMIN
> † † † † 2. [6]2. SPEC MAINTENANCE
> † † † † 3. [7]3. Name of the 4th dimension
> † † † † 4. [8]4. CR transitioning
> † † † † 5. [9]5. AOB
> † † * [10]Summary of Action Items
> † † _________________________________________________________
>
> † <trackbot> Date: 15 June 2011
>
> † <doublec> I get 'dispatch code is not valid'
>
> † <doublec> when trying to enter the conference code
>
> † <doublec> yes
>
> † <silvia> hmmÖ I am still at work and about to go homeÖ am I needed
> † in the meeting?
>
> † Chris announcing some nightlies to see part of media fragments in
> † ACTION:-)
>
> 1. ADMIN
>
> † PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the last week telecon:
>
> † [11]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-mediafrag-minutes.html
>
> † † [11] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-mediafrag-minutes.html
>
> † <davy> +1
>
> † <erik> +1
>
> † +1
>
> † <jackjansen> +1
>
> † minutes accepted
>
> † <doublec> +1
>
> 2. SPEC MAINTENANCE
>
> † ACTION-218?
>
> † <trackbot> ACTION-218 -- Jack Jansen to carrefully review the
> † changes made by Davy that will most likely be all over the palce --
> † due 2011-04-20 -- OPEN
>
> † <trackbot>
> † [12]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/218
>
> † † [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/218
>
> † Jack: I'd like that people go through this list and address these
> † comments
> † ... going through my comments, the first one is actually about
> † section 6.1.1
> † ... it is indeed a typo, e should be > 0
> † ... should we allow empty images or empty video files ?
>
> † Davy: no, no empty images, so we are right to write w>0 and h>0
> † ... for consistency, we do the same for temporal, to e>0 (strictly
> † greater)
>
> † Jack: harmonize the text, between play from x to y OR play from x
> † until y ... and also specifiy if the last frame should or should not
> † be played
> † ... this is an open interval so the last frame shouldn't be played
>
> † Raphael: we should even have a test case that check this
>
> † Jack: this is important if we start combining media fragments
> † ... we use width as opposed to right so it is clear which pixels are
> † actually displayed
> † ... this is clear, we can ignore this point
> † ... #t=a, is illegal
>
> † Davy: yes per the ABNF and per the test case
>
> † Raphael: we should put it in the section 6.2.2 as a typical example
> † of error case
>
> † <davy>
> † [13]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases#TC001
> † 8-UA
>
> † † [13]
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases#TC0018-UA
>
> † Jack: problem with SMPTE time code adressing: are we always
> † guaranteed to have frame accuracy
>
> † <foolip> I don't think the spec is anywhere near CR, it has no
> † browser implementations yet. (I also don't know why the spec status
> † is important.)
>
> † <foolip> I have no opinion on the name, id is fine by me.
>
> † Philip, CR does not mean implementations ... PR mean implementations
>
> † <Yves> foolip, CR is a call for implementations, so it's normal not
> † to have implementation at that stage (and the end result might be
> † going back to LC again)
>
> † <foolip> OK, no opinion on spec status
>
> † <Yves> in any case, we know that most implementers are aware of the
> † status of the edcopy :)
>
> † Jack: perhaps we could let it explicitly as "implementation to be
> † defined"
> † ... if you do spmte addressing on smpte encoded media has a well
> † defined behavior
> † ... but if you do smpte addressing on non smpte-encoded media, then
> † it is explicly undefined and we wait for implementation experience
>
> † <doublec> We have no plans to implement smpte timecods
>
> † Raphael: I think foolip does not plan to implement smpte addressing,
> † correct foolip ?
>
> † <foolip> raphael, correct
>
> † Jack: that is fine, this not for browsers, this is more for editing
> † programs
>
> † Silvia: gstreamer has a plan to implement media fragments with smpte
> † time codes addressing for live streaming!
>
> † <silvia> flumotion
>
> † Davy: WebTV IG has also interest in frame accuracy
>
> † <Yves> but does editing programs needs identifying such timepoints
> † using URIs ?
>
> † <silvia> Thomas van der Stichele from Fluendo
>
> † Davy: we should keep an eye on this group
>
> † Raphael: I will check if Thomas is subscribed to this mailing list
>
> † <Yves> ok, thanks Jack, the annotations is indeed a use case
>
> † Jack: the annotation use case is important, not only for playback,
> † in an editing program that would use a URI to identify a frame
>
> † Davy: no we don't have test cases yet for a<s and b<s and various
> † combinations (because smpte timecodes don't have to be zero-based)
> † ... we removed them for npt since these resources cannot start with
> † 0, but we should add them back for smpte
>
> † Jack: undefined for non contiguous smpte timecodes
> † ... we need much more implementation experience
>
> † Raphael: I'm in favor of saying explicitly it is *undefined*
>
> † +1 from Jack and Davy
>
> † <silvia> +1
>
> † Raphael: going through the problem of track names discovery
> † ... and errors on the track dimension
>
> † Jack: what's happen with #track=foo&t=10,40 ?
> † ... and track foo starts at t=25
> † ... an implementation will play this track from 25 to 40 ?
> † ... or play all the tracks from 10 to 25 and start to play from 25
> † to 40 the track foo ?
>
> † Silvia: no, you just select the track, and return the sub part you
> † have
> † ... I wouldn't write anything about this, this is a general problem
> † ... this is a corner case
> † ... again an implementation quality issue
>
> † Jack: again, then I would be in favor of saying explicitly undefined
> † ... if a track does not exist for the whole duration of the media,
> † then what is happened is undefined
> † ... a forthcoming WG could fix it
> † ... 6.3.5: we should explicitly state what happens if you apply a
> † chapter MF to a media format that doesn't support chaptering?
>
> † Davy: we have a test case for that
>
> † <Yves> yes, same defaulting behaviour as 'not found'
>
> † Davy: same behavior that the media format supporting chapters but
> † the chapter is not found
>
> † close ACTION-217
>
> † <trackbot> ACTION-217 Edit the specification for precising what is
> † the user experience when there is an invalid time range closed
>
> † ACTIO: davy to edit the specification and in particular section 6 to
> † reflect this entire discussion
>
> † <scribe> ACTION: davy to edit the specification and in particular
> † section 6 to reflect this entire discussion [recorded in
> † [14]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
>
> † <trackbot> Created ACTION-225 - Edit the specification and in
> † particular section 6 to reflect this entire discussion [on Davy Van
> † Deursen - due 2011-06-22].
>
> † ACTION-221?
>
> † <trackbot> ACTION-221 -- Davy Van Deursen to fix the #t=10, in
> † Section 4.2.1 which is invalid -- due 2011-06-15 -- OPEN
>
> † <trackbot>
> † [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/221
>
> † † [15] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/221
>
> † close ACTION-221
>
> † <trackbot> ACTION-221 Fix the #t=10, in Section 4.2.1 which is
> † invalid closed
>
> † ACTION-222?
>
> † <trackbot> ACTION-222 -- Davy Van Deursen to adapt Section 5.2.3 so
> † that the server can also send back the mapping in terms of byte
> † ranges -- due 2011-06-15 -- OPEN
>
> † <trackbot>
> † [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/222
>
> † † [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/222
>
> † close ACTION-222
>
> † <trackbot> ACTION-222 Adapt Section 5.2.3 so that the server can
> † also send back the mapping in terms of byte ranges closed
>
> 3. Name of the 4th dimension
>
> † <jackjansen> I fully agree with Philip
>
> † <jackjansen> I disagree with "cue", the other ones are fine. "Cue"
> † is a point, not an interval;
>
> † Raphael: chapter might not be a good dimension name for possible
> † confusion with the chapter track
>
> † <jackjansen> lol
>
> † Silvia: segment?
>
> † Raphael: id
>
> † <jackjansen> range? area? part?
>
> † <doublec> bookmark?
>
> † <jackjansen> -bookmark: it's a point
>
> † <doublec> what do the users suggest as an alternative?
>
> † Silvia: I'm worried about the users, not the programmer
>
> † Jack: initally we talked about id but said it replaced all
> † dimensions
> † ... now we restrict it to only time ranges
> † ... and renamed it chapter
>
> † <Yves> shortcut?
>
> † Jack: so if this is just a temporal range, chapter is good
>
> † Silvia: chapter in the context of HTML5 is made for navigational
> † purpose
>
> † Jack: I'm in +-0
>
> † Raphael: I like "id" because it is general and can extended in
> † version 2
>
> † <davy> +1
>
> † Erik: id I prefer
>
> † <foolip> perhaps our problem is that the best solution would be
> † #nameofthingtoseekto, just like for HTML, but that unfortunately
> † conflicts with something else we've made up :)
>
> † <silvia> #nameofthingtorestrictto
>
> † Yves: id also conflicts with HTML
>
> † <foolip> silvia, so you no longer think users should be able to seek
> † outside of the given fragment? ;)
>
> † Jack: I disagree, id refers to a continuous section of a structured
> † document
> † ... and this is what we mean
>
> † Yves: id means point
>
> † <doublec> fragment?
>
> † Jack: no, a node that points to a subsection
>
> † <doublec> :)
>
> † Raphael: propose to switch back to ID
>
> † <doublec> I just noticed everyone was calling it a fragment
>
> † <jackjansen> +0
>
> † <silvia> +.5
>
> † <doublec> +1 to id
>
> † +1 for ID
>
> † <davy> +1 for id
>
> † <erik> +1 to id
>
> † <Yves> ~0 for id
>
> † <jackjansen> ~0? you mean 0xffffffff?
>
> † <Yves> yep!
>
> † <jackjansen> That's -1 to me....
>
> † <Yves> now use the right type, signed or unsigned...
>
> † <scribe> ACTION: davy to edit the spec again to switch back to "ID"
> † for the 4th dimension [recorded in
> † [17]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]
>
> † <trackbot> Created ACTION-226 - Edit the spec again to switch back
> † to "ID" for the 4th dimension [on Davy Van Deursen - due
> † 2011-06-22].
>
> † ACTION-224?
>
> † <trackbot> ACTION-224 -- RaphaŽl Troncy to send a reply to the 4
> † commenters -- due 2011-06-15 -- OPEN
>
> † <trackbot>
> † [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/224
>
> † † [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/224
>
> 4. CR transitioning
>
> † Yves: diff versions need to be prepared
> † ... just run htmldiff between the two LC and the CR version
>
> † <Yves> see
> † [19]http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01
> † -transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&
> † docstatus=cr-tr
>
> † † [19]
> http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=cr-tr
>
> † Yves: the disposition of comments ?
> † ... create an HTML page for this
> † ... the comments between 1st LC, 2nd LC and CR
> † ... I'm wondering if the whole section 5.2 should not be put aside
> † in a different document with a note status ?
>
> † Jack: do we want a note or an extension to be a spec later on
>
> † Yves: a note would be better, it could be picked up by WG later on
> † ... there are multiple ways of doing the same thing and I'm not sure
> † it should be in the spec
>
> † Jack: it is a painful decision to make because we have devoted a lot
> † of time in it
> † ... but I think I agree with you
>
> † Silvia: I don't think this is fine. I believe implementers will need
> † this part and consistently used
>
> † <silvia> it's about getting interoperable implementations
>
> † Jack: look at the audience of this document: end users, web
> † designers, people doing implementations
>
> † Silvia: no, I disagree, we are targetting the URI spec readers
>
> † <Yves> rfc3986 is different from rfc2616
>
> † Raphael: I agree with Silvia, and I don't think we should throw away
> † this part
>
> † Jack: this is clear that this part is nice for browser vendors, but
> † it is not interesting for other readers
>
> † Raphael: I don't think that our spec is that *long* that we should
> † bother with part targetted at a different audience
>
> † <Yves> I will take that to email
>
> † <silvia> a specification is there to create interoperable
> † implementations
>
> † <silvia> it's not a communication tool for users - they can get
> † their information from other websites that have created readable
> † subparts from the specification
>
> † <erik> +1 to Raphael & Silvia ... if some are not interested in some
> † parts, you just don't read it ... browser vendors are main players
> † that will make this spec work (I think)
>
> † Rapahel: I will prepare the diff files and the disposition of
> † comments
>
> † Yves: I will follow up this discussion by email + indicating the
> † status of HTTP Bis and request for implementations from Marc
> † Nottingham
>
> 5. AOB
>
> † none
>
> † meeting adjourned
>
> † <scribe> ACTION: double to announce a link to a nightly implementing
> † part of the media fragment spec [recorded in
> † [20]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]
>
> † <trackbot> Created ACTION-227 - Announce a link to a nightly
> † implementing part of the media fragment spec [on Chris Double - due
> † 2011-06-22].
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
> † [NEW] ACTION: davy to edit the spec again to switch back to "ID" for
> † the 4th dimension [recorded in
> † [21]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]
> † [NEW] ACTION: davy to edit the specification and in particular
> † section 6 to reflect this entire discussion [recorded in
> † [22]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
> † [NEW] ACTION: double to announce a link to a nightly implementing
> † part of the media fragment spec [recorded in
> † [23]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-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, 15 June 2011 13:58:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:43 GMT