W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: MPEG-U

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:13:05 +0100
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <18D40B2F-6798-49FF-A938-C02745456445@berjon.com>
To: cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr
Hi Cyril,

On Jan 12, 2010, at 17:34 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
> Le 11/01/2010 15:41, Robin Berjon a écrit :
>> Ah, do you have a pointer? I searched for "MPEG-U" in all the public and member lists yet only this thread shows up.
> The liaison was sent by the ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC29 secretariat, and since MPEG did not receive any feedback, I checked and was informed that it was mistakenly sent to Tim Berners Lee ! I informed Doug and Mike of that fact, I thought that it would be discussed in the WG. Anyway it doesn't matter anymore since I think the liaison is outdated.

Heh! I know it's hard to get any ISO secretariat to do the right thing with liaisons, but the best for liaisons is to send them directly to this list, preferably through a common member (like the equally delightfully named ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG4 recently did).

>> If avoidable I'd rather not join yet another mailing list just for a few questions, after which I'd have to unsubscribe again. Since you're closely involved with this work, would you mind answering the questions I outlined in my original post?
> I'm sorry but the only questions in your email were "what's happening aroung MPEG-U ?" and "Can you enlighten us ?". I thought the web page I set up was providing enough information (background, roadmap, spec). Can you be more precise as to what you want to know ?

I'm sorry, I realise that my original message isn't entirely clear in terms of what "enlightening us" covers :). The web page you sent is indeed helpful in describing MPEG-U, but I had other questions. Here is the part that the enlightenment intended to cover:

"""
One reason I'm asking is because some of the work items in that document are interesting in a generic manner, and therefore are things that could make their way into WebApp's charter when it comes up for rechartering (which is soon). I don't think that all that's listed there would be of interest to WebApps (e.g. I'd be surprised if the WG cared about integration with BIFS or ISOFF packaging, assuming members even have heard of them), but some topics (inter-widget communication, context management, aggregation) certainly are.

Given MPEG's patent policy and inexperience with web technology one can take a fairly good bet that if MPEG-U defines solutions in this space WebApps won't adopt them, thereby leading to fragmentation: something that the document above states it wishes to avoid.
"""

So to make the question more explicit: given the stated goal of avoiding fragmentation (with which I strongly agree) in conjunction with the risk inherent in doing work that won't be adopted or that will take place in parallel, are you aware of any plans in the MPEG-U community to avoid fragmentation on topics that WebApps is likely to take up?

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:13:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:36 GMT