W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > December 2011

[MPTF] ADR_Min_Control and manifest control

From: Jan Lindquist <jan.lindquist@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:48:02 +0100
To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <82276AE38FD87A4C9CF6C820AC5276EA358FC3E39C@ESESSCMS0362.eemea.ericsson.se>
Hello,

I appreciate the references that were added relating to Flash and Silverlight which adds clarity to why several of the parameters that were in the draft coming into yesterday's phone conference. The below comments tries to have create a more consistent draft.

I am still not convinced that we cannot have a control of the manifest. There isn't precedence with having this additional control of the manifest and selection of the tracks or levels. There is obviously an exposure of the manifest through error codes, representationID and callback functions reporting changes in the selected representation. Why are we so keen to exclude the control of the levels directly related to the manifest?

The use case CT2 specifically gives a clear example of the control there needs to be in place in order to get HD. It is not a bandwidth control that sets HD, it is the control of the manifest and quality level. There may be issues with associating a level to the different adaptive streams but that can be done by the respective adaptive stream standards just like texttracks to DVB mappings.

The CT3 will not be achieved through a minimumBandwidth either as explained in a seperate e-mail.

For support of the CT2 and CT3 I recommend to re-introduce the maxLevel and minLevel.

Regards,
JanL
Received on Friday, 16 December 2011 07:48:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:44:06 UTC