Re: Liaison Statement to W3C (SC 29 N 13268)

fine by me to send this.

/g

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 00:20:40 +0200, Vickers, Mark  
<Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote:

> +Paul Cotton+Liaisons
>
> We need to send a reply to the MPEG MMT liaison letter of Feb 19. I  
> suggest we reply in a similar way to the reply >sent recently to  
> OIPF/HbbTV/DTG, where we directed the discussion to our mail lists and  
> bug tracking system. I have a >draft below.
>
> (FYI, the MMT group published an updated version of their spec for  
> balloting, which is posted publicly here:
> http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc29/open/29view/29n13303c.htmJust go to the  
> "CD ballot text" link at the bottom of the webpage to download the  
> latest MMT spec.)
>
> Here is a first draft, largely copied from the previous reply:
>
> "To Shinji Watanabe, Assistant Secretary, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29
>
> The Web and TV Interest Group of the W3C reviewed your liaison letter of  
> February 19. Overall, we believe both use >cases can be met addressed by  
> HTML5 and related specifications. However, the use case as described in  
> the liaison >letter were not in sufficient detail to answer all  
> technical questions raised in our review. We suggest that a more  
> >effective interactive dialog can happen through use of our mailing  
> lists and bug tracking system.
>
> The W3C is always interested and open to discuss requirements from other  
> organizations and/or individuals. This is >done through public mailing  
> lists. For the issues you raise concerning HTML5, we encourage you to  
> post the use cases >or perceived functionality gaps to  
> public-html.w3.org <public-html@w3.org>, which will initiate a dialog on  
> these >issues in a richer and more timely manner than with liaison  
> letters.
>
> If you have specific comments on the existing specifications, you can  
> also use the public bugzilla list to raise >issues against the HTML5  
> spec:https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?product=HTML%20WG    
> ****Not sure this is the best link ***
>
> Finally, if you believe that you would benefit from some more discussion  
> with other stakeholders in the media industry >before submitting a  
> proposal/comment to the HTML WG, you could also consider participating  
> in a dialog with the Web&TV >IG public list first, by posting to:
> public-web-and-tv@w3.org
>
> Also note that the HTML WG has recently defined a concept of "extensions  
> specifications". This is explained in more >details here
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html
>
> In short, extension specifications are allowed to "extend" HTML5 spec  
> and at the same time to proceed at their own >pace and being integrated  
> into the main spec (HTML 5.x) as soon as they are ready, without  
> affecting the timeline of >the other extensions or of the main  
> specification.
>
> Best regards,
> Mark Vickers on behalf of the W3C Web&TV IG, or (better) someone from  
> the W3C Liaisons group"
>
> Thanks,
> mav
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 4:04 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Jean-Claude Dufourd  
>> <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 21/2/13 04:58 , Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit :
>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com>  
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.     The ability to accurately time the playback of  
>>>>>>>>>>>> different media >>>>>>>elements (for instance using wall  
>>>>>>>>>>>> clock time) in the document in a >>>>>>>declarative manner,  
>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. without reverting to scripting in a way similar to  
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>SMIL. MMT does not require a scripting engine.
>>>>>> I'm not sure why scripting is optional in MMT. Can someone familiar  
>>>>>> with SMIL >>>>>>describe what declarative form they're looking for  
>>>>>> here?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> SMIL allows wallcock time synchronization through using wallclock  
>>>> times in @begin and @end >>>>attributes [1] within <par> and <seq>  
>>>> markup. It requires that the document "start" time has >>>>to be  
>>>> associated with a wallclock time and thus allows the mapping.
>>> JCD: Yes, that is what they mean when writing about SMIL.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The closest effort to this at the W3C FAIK is the Web Animations work  
>>>> [2] which is planning >>>>to introduce a document timeline [3]. It's  
>>>> still in its early stages, so no browser >>>>implementation. Also, I  
>>>> don't know if it will satisfy the "declarative markup" requirement,  
>>>> >>>>because it only introduces a JS API for now. But it's probably  
>>>> well worth pointing out this >>>>effort to MPEG.
>>>>
>>>> [1]  
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-SMIL2-20050107/smil-timing.html#Timing->>>>WallclockSyncValueSyntax
>>>> [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/default/web-anim/index.html 
>>>> [3]  
>>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/default/web-anim/index.html#the-document-timeline
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Overall, I do wonder about what MMT has to do with these  
>>>> application-level requirements. IIUC >>>>MMT is about delivering  
>>>> packed media, so it's an enabler of applications. It should not need  
>>>> >>>>to look at HTML & the JS APIs for defining its specifications.
>>> JCD: We have told the MMT group over and over that they are mixing  
>>> layers, that their MMT architecture is >>>a mess, etc.
>>> I have personally fought against this particular part of MMT, called  
>>> Composition Information, for 2 >>>years.
>>> Most of the people involved in the design of DASH have said the same. 
>>> It seems the W3C liaison still did not help.
>>
>> Fair enough. :-)
>>
>> Silvia.
>



-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
Product Manager TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software