W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > April 2012

[MEDIA_PIPELINE_TF] minutes - 19 April 2012

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 01:28:49 +0900
Message-ID: <4F903D41.8050600@w3.org>
To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
available at:
  http://www.w3.org/2012/04/19-webtv-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, David!

Kazuyuki

---
    [1]W3C

       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                      Media Pipeline Task Force call

19 Apr 2012

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/Agenda_Telco_19th_April_2012

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/04/19-webtv-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Aaron_Colwell, Kazuyuki, joesteele, Clarke, glenn,
           Niklas_Schmücker, Juhani, Bob_Lund, John_Simmons,
           David_Corvoysier, Mark_Vickers, Mark_Watson, Franck,
           Philipp

    Regrets
    Chair
           Clarke

    Scribe
           David_Corvoysier

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Status of the Media TF in the HTML WG
          2. [6]Discuss status of open MPTF bugs and what (if
             anything) still needs to be done with them
          3. [7]requirements document
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

Status of the Media TF in the HTML WG

    Clarke: Call for consensus on the creation of the Media TF in
    HTML ended yesterday
    ... Not more insight on what will happen next

    John: Not familiar with the process

    markV: It will be on the agenda of the HTML TF today

Discuss status of open MPTF bugs and what (if anything) still needs
to be done with them

    Clarke: Bugs: a precision has been added on one of the bugs

    <kaz> [9]Dashboard wiki

       [9] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF

    Clarke: Did anybody notice new bugs relevant to this group ?

    -> No answer

requirements document

    <Clarke> ABR Requirements:
    [10]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/35ffe94c6c64/mpreq/MPT
    F-ADB-Requirements.html

      [10] 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/35ffe94c6c64/mpreq/MPTF-ADB-Requirements.html

    Clarke: Apologize for being a mercurial newbie
    ... Feel free to make changes and help me updating the document

    <kaz> [11]Latest draft

      [11] 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/35ffe94c6c64/mpreq/MPTF-ADB-Requirements.html

    Clarke: Not everything seems to have been pushed to mercurial

    <joesteele> I am muted ...

    <ph> ty

    Clarke: Opinions on the ABR reqs ? Terminology section ?

    Aaron: Active ids is not required

    <acolwell>
    [12]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/
    media-source.html

      [12] 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html

    Aaron: update the url to the meida source proposal already
    submitted to the W3C

    Clarke: Source/Track buffers ? any comments
    ... Maybe these terms should be only explaine din the
    referenced proposals
    ... Missing Definitions have been posted to local repo: should
    be upstream soon
    ... Anything missing in paragraph 4

    Joe: What was the resolution on the errors ?

    Clarke: That's still open
    ... 4.1.2 media tag instead of audio & video ? did that to
    differentiate from the object tag
    ... in paragraph 4, one must be very careful with the language
    used to express the fact that everything should be open, both
    in terms of solutions and implementations

    John: open is a loaded word
    ... whatever ABR techno is used is not important: enabling a
    techno is not specifying it

    Clarke: little uncomfortable with language related to open
    source browsers

    John: examples of where this req should apply ?

    Clarke: I want to avoid to imply that if an ABR solution is not
    open source, it cannot be made available in an open source
    browser

    Mark: some formats will _not_ be supported by all UAs

    John: To that extent req 4.1.9 cannot fully apply

    Aaron: It should be possible to create an ABR system that
    everybody supports ?
    ... I am not advocating for us choosing a format, but there may
    be an open source format option, that is a format that could be
    implemented by every UA

    John: What is the definition ? RF ?

    Joe: Is there a W3C definition of what _is_ open source ?

    Philipp: By definition, a spec is not source code. The question
    is whether it can be implemented in an open source environment

    <kaz> [13]w3c glossary (just fyi)

      [13] 
http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/open%20source.html?keywords=open%20source

    Philipp: I don't have the answer: would need to check with open
    source experts

    John: Do we need this req altogether ?
    ... The debate is not open source vesus closed source: it seems
    more related to being agnostic to ABR systems
    ... You don't need to specify anything specific to any ABR
    system, actually: only specify the spec allowing to use them

    Clarke: Just want to make sure we don't prevent any
    implementation in open source browser

    Mark: We are mixing spec and code (and confusing the scribe a
    lot !!!)
    ... The fact that a specification has to be published for free
    encourages the implementation of it by open source
    ... The issue in all W3C spec, especially with these two, is
    that there is nothing implying that the tech below the W3C
    specs need to be RF also

    Clarke: I am willing to be convinced that req 4.1.9 is
    implicit: is that the consensus in the group^

    <joesteele> +1 implicit

    Aaron: I would say that the W3C spec for ABR or EC must be
    implementable RF

    <glenn> are you saying that *all* ABR/ECs need to be
    implementable RF?

    Juhani?: The API must work with open source browser, but we
    should not tak any position related to format or the Royalties
    associated to lower level APIs

    <glenn> i agree that the API itself (that W3C defines) should
    be implementable RF, but it goes too far to say that the
    underlying semantics of a specific ABR (that is exposed by that
    API) must also be implementable RF

    Clarke: We should to be more explicit in this req
    ... Still no consensus, will leave it in by default until we
    work on the wording

    Joe: Something alogn the lines could be added "To the extent
    that the W3C already requires specs to be RF"

    <Juhani> +1

    Clarke: Would suggest wording

    Bob: Could we be more explicit that audio abd video should
    support playback of content delivered using ABR

    Clarke: Will take Bob's suggested wording offline
    ... About parameters, the clarification that i am trying to
    make is that we don't limit the number of parameters that can
    be used, but instead specify a minimum set
    ... A pretty good starting place here !
    ... Please take a look at this doc next week, and also on the
    EC doc (hope the changes will be pushed this time)
    ... AOB ? Not ?

    Meeting adjourned

    <Clarke> Thanks, David

    <kaz> [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [14]scribe.perl version
     1.136 ( [15]CVS log)
     $Date: 2012/04/19 15:58:19 $

      [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 16:30:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 April 2012 16:30:20 GMT