- From: Clarke Stevens <C.Stevens@CableLabs.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:53:31 -0700
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- CC: "Mark Vickers @ Comcast" <mark_vickers@cable.comcast.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
On that point, I followed Dave's suggestion to propose running average over 1 minute. -Clarke On 12/15/11 11:47 PM, "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: >bits/second or bytes/second doesn't matter. The issue is that unless you >specify a time period (or more generally an averaging algorithm) the >measure is meaningless. I'm aware that there are existing APIs where no >time period is specified, but this just means it is >implementation-specific. That might be ok when there is only one >implementation, because people learn by experimentation what that one >implementation does. For example there is only one implementation of >Flash and only one of Silverlight. But if you want to write something >meaningful that could support multiple interoperable implementations, you >need to be more specific. > >...Mark > >On Dec 15, 2011, at 10:20 PM, Clarke Stevens wrote: > >> I made changes to "bits/second," but now I'm not sure I should have. We >> talk about "bit rate" and most everything I've seen in other contexts >>uses >> bits/second, but it appears that the Flash APIs use bytes/second. >> >> Is there a common convention here? If not, I recommend bits/second since >> that is how the data rate is typically specified in the digital >>television >> and data access universes. >> >> Thanks, >> -Clarke >> >> On 12/15/11 11:10 PM, "Clarke Stevens" <C.Stevens@CableLabs.com> wrote: >> >>> I just sent it 2 seconds before I got this message. However, I'll >>>comment >>> on your recommendations below. >>> >>> -Clarke >>> >>> On 12/15/11 10:47 PM, "Mark Vickers @ Comcast" >>> <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Minor edits: >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/HTML_Error_codes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/ADR_Minimal_Control_Model_Propo >>>>>sa >>>>> l >>>> >>>> Minimal Control Model needs explanation. Perhaps copy explanation of >>>>the >>>> three models into this doc or link back to other doc. >>> >>> I did include a link back to the architectural models (although it is >>> towards the end of the message). >>> >>>> >>>> Shouldn't bytes/second should be bits/second. Was this discussed? The >>>>SVG >>>> API and other IETF APIs are bits/second. >>> >>> Since the message includes on links to the wiki, I can check and make >>>the >>> change (if necessary) on this. I agree that it should be bits per >>>second. >>> >>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/Netflix_Content_Protection >>>> >>>> May need to be some mention that there hasn't been time for full >>>>review >>>> by or consensus of MPTF yet. >>> >>> We must be on the same wavelength. That's exactly what I did. >>> >>>> >>>> Where do we reference the seamless playback use case and API? >>> >>> It's not referenced in the current response since we don't really have >>> anything to link to yet. I still have an hour if we want to try to put >>> something together. Would we link it to the same two bugs as the other >>> proposals (parameters and feedback)? I'm not sure that was specifically >>> requested from any particular bugs like the other proposals were. >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> mav >>>> >>>> On Dec 15, 2011, at 9:12 PM, Clarke Stevens wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm starting my final edits now and will send in the proposals >>>>>shortly. >>>>> Last call for changes or comments. >>>>> >>>>> -Clarke >>>>> >>>>> On 12/15/11 9:19 PM, "Mays, David" <David_Mays@comcast.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm ok with the changes. Did you submit yet? >>>>>> >>>>>> Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> From: Clarke Stevens [C.Stevens@CableLabs.com] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:08 PM >>>>>> To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG >>>>>> Subject: Re: [MEDIA_PIPELINE_TF] Content protection proposal >>>>>> >>>>>> Although we have not really had a chance to review it as a group, I >>>>>>am >>>>>> considering providing Mark Watson's content protection proposal as >>>>>> feedback to the HTML WG in addition to the HTML Errors and ABR >>>>>>Minimal >>>>>> Control proposals. >>>>>> >>>>>> My motivation is that same as that for the ABR Minimal Control >>>>>> proposal. >>>>>> It is a useful and well-considered proposal that may require some >>>>>> modification, but it provides a basis for discussion and a path for >>>>>> inclusion in HTML5. >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, our feedback on LC Bugs 13625 and 12399 that is due >>>>>> today >>>>>> would include HTML Errors, ABR Minimal Control and Netflix Content >>>>>> Protection: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/HTML_Error_codes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/ADR_Minimal_Control_Model_Prop >>>>>>os >>>>>> a >>>>>> l >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/Netflix_Content_Protection >>>>>> >>>>>> I plan to send this feedback to HTML WG this evening after people >>>>>>have >>>>>> had a chance to comment, edit, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me know what you think. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> -Clarke >>>>>> >>>>>> P.S. For your convenience, here are the links to the relevant bugs: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13625 >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12399 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 16 December 2011 06:54:08 UTC