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

minutes of 2011-09-07 teleconference

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 11:53:16 +0200
Message-ID: <4E673F0C.70202@eurecom.fr>
To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Dear all,

The minutes of today's phone telecon are available for review at 
http://www.w3.org/2011/09/07-mediafrag-minutes.html (and in text format 

The summary:
   * CR transition processed today (hopefully)
   * Some remaining TC to review (Action from Jack)
   * A showcase portal to plan (Thomas, Raphael)
   * Preparing the Test Cases report with the current implementations


       [1] http://www.w3.org/
              Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
07 Sep 2011
    See also: [2]IRC log
       [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/09/07-mediafrag-irc
           Raphael, Yves, Silvia, Thomas
           Erik, Davy
      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]1. ADMIN
          2. [5]2. SPEC
          4. [7]4. HTML5 Bugs
          5. [8]5. AOB
      * [9]Summary of Action Items

    <trackbot> Date: 07 September 2011

    <scribe> Scribe: raphael

    oups: -)


    Yves will book zakim again until the end of the year

    Yves: I would like that the features at risk is explicit in the
    status section of the document
    ... in particular the entire section on which the group votes for
    keeping it or not

    PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the last telecon:

      [10] http://www.w3.org/2011/07/27-mediafrag-minutes.html

    <tomayac> +1


    <silvia> +1

    <Yves> +1

    minutes accepted



    <trackbot> ACTION-234 -- Thomas Steiner to review the "Media Type
    Specifications and Registration Procedures" IETF draft -- due
    2011-08-25 -- OPEN


      [11] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/234



    Raphael: Thomas, could you send this review to IETF on behalf of the

    <tomayac> sure, will do

    close ACTION-234

    <trackbot> ACTION-234 Review the "Media Type Specifications and
    Registration Procedures" IETF draft closed


    <trackbot> ACTION-231 -- Yves Lafon to check if his grammar is in
    synch with the latest version of the spec -- due 2011-07-13 -- OPEN


      [13] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/231

    Yves: will do it in 2 weeks


    Raphael: we have the nightlies of Firefox
    ... we have a version of Opera but who has tested it?
    ... @foolip, how can we download a nightly to test your

    <silvia> I didn't see it Ö sorry

    close ACTION-227

    <trackbot> ACTION-227 Announce a link to a nightly implementing part
    of the media fragment spec closed

    <foolip> There is no nightly, only the build I made at OVC last year


    <trackbot> ACTION-228 -- Thomas Steiner to develop the validator
    page using his js library for media fragments -- due 2011-07-20 --


      [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/228

    <silvia> @foolip: is it in the main trunk and will it become part of
    a release or are there no plans?

    <foolip> it's on a branch, there are no immediate plans to do
    anything with it

    @foolip do you think you can made another build and share it with
    the group?

    Thomas: I have filled a entry for Chromium to get Media Frag


      [15] http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=94368

    Thomas: I will look internally who is the best person to lobby

    <foolip> raphael, that would be a fair amount of work (making a
    proper desktop build), would it be valuable?

    <tomayac> user script ŗ la greasemonkey

    Thomas: I plan to turn my js library in a GreaseMonkey script that
    would make some browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Safari?) natively
    supporting media fragment

    @foolip we need to generate test report of existing implementations,
    so we will need to have some frozen versions at some point

    scribe: I understand that generating builds for multiple OS is a
    great amount of work
    ... how can we help?
    ... what is the plan of Opera to include it in the main trunk at
    some point?

    <foolip> ok, for those purposes I think we can consider Opera's
    implementation to be non-existent for the time being

    <foolip> and update it when there is an implementation released on
    the normal path

    <foolip> if we don't go through proper integration, I can't get
    proper testing, so the results would reflect badly on us, most

    ok foolip, and you have a schedule plan for proper integration?

    Thomas: I will think more about the GreaseMonkey script

4. HTML5 Bugs

    See: [16]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10723

      [16] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10723

    <foolip> raphael, I'll be honest and say that MF is pretty far down
    the priority list for <video>, after things like <track>, WebRTC,
    adaptive streaming, multitrack and Audio API

    Raphael: I will re-open this bug

    <foolip> We won't be taking the lead here, like I had initially

    Raphael: based on Chris nightly implementation

5. AOB

    Raphael: the main point of discussion now should be complete the
    test cases review and mainly generate test cases report
    ... so that we can see what is well implemented

    Silvia: we need now nice web page and applications that use media
    ... liaise with video sharing platform?

    Thomas: I have an application accepted at the DeRiVE workshop
    ... that detects events in videos
    ... Raphael and me can brainstorm on a web site that showcase media
    fragment implementations
    ... including good and cool web sites
    ... People seem to focus on the temporal aspect only of the spec
    ... should we be worried?
    ... should we ultimately split the spec into temporal aspects vs
    other aspectS?

    Yves: I think you have a good point
    ... CSS is very keen to use Media Fragments for slicing
    ... we should focus on this part as well
    ... perhaps discuss with David Baron for Mozilla, ask Philip for
    Opera ... or ask Bert from W3C
    ... if we have multiple partial implementations that all together
    cover the whole spec, this is fine if the group decides so
    ... for an audio client, this makes no sense to implement the
    spatial visual part

    Silvia: do we expect a browser to implement the whole spec or only
    some features?
    ... I think we should look for features

    Raphael: +1!

    <tomayac> +1, silvia

    Silvia: we need e.g. 2 different implementations for the temporal

    Raphael: other things you would like to discuss

    Silvia: I will publicize Media Fragments at OVC

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 September 2011 09:54:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:46 UTC