W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-council@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Media Resource In-band Tracks Community Group Launched

From: Vickers, Mark <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:07:18 +0000
Message-ID: <1B280A8D-9921-4E2F-8B63-1068C1C1EAEA@cable.comcast.com>
To: Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: Bob Lund <b.lund@cablelabs.com>, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>, "public-council@w3.org" <public-council@w3.org>, public-web-and-tv IG <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
On Oct 22, 2013, at 2:51 PM, "Olivier Thereaux" <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Mark, all.
>> On 22 Oct 2013, at 18:29, "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>> Purpose: The purpose of this CG is to draft a spec in the specific area of mapping external specs, like MPEG-TS, to HTML5 in-band media tracks. This cannot be done in the IG because IG's are forbidden by W3C rules from writing specs. [] Membership: Note also that the CG, unlike the IG, allows for direct participation by non-W3C members, which should help with the CG focus on external specs.
> The participation argument made sense in the case of the Web & Broadcasting BG, where there was a significant number of non W3C-members wishing to participate in the conversation. It is unclear whether this is the case there.

There are non-W3C members who I'm hoping will participate in this CG, but the main driving reason is that the IG cannot draft a spec.

> Regardless, the above sounds more like a case for our IG to become a CG than a genuine need for a new group. Maybe worth an agenda item at the upcoming f2f?

We can't change the IG into a CG, but we can discuss all options at TPAC. 

In any case, I still see no conflict here. During the tenure of the Web and TV IG, both the Broadcasting BG and the Timed Text CG were created with some charter overlap with the IG and we've been able to work with those groups. I'm sure we will work with this CG. 

The Media API TF was always chartered to write only recommendations, not specs. Nothing has changed for the TF. 

>> Focus: The focus of the CG is narrowly on mapping external specs, like MPEG-TS, to HTML5 in-band media tracks, whereas the IG and specifically the Media APIs Task Force (TF) is much more broadly focused.
>> Specifically, the Media APIs TF could definitely write requirements in the area of mapping external specs to HTML5 in-band media tracks and the CG could turn those requirements into a draft spec. (Likely it could be the same people, in many cases!)
> The focus of the CG is a subset of that of the TF, yes. And it may be a good thing to have a spinoff group working on this spec at some point. It is however not sustainable to expect a given group to give input and feedback to itself across several mailing-lists. Having an IG spin off CGs, frankly, sounds like an unnecessary fragmentation burden.

It is the whole purpose of the IG to write requirements to hand off to spec writing groups. We've done this very successfully many times to date. When the IG was created, there were only WGs to write specs. But now that CGs and BGs have been added, the IG has worked with them also. I don't understand what is untenable.
> I would like to hear the opinion of the IG - and the Media APIs TF members in particular - about such a setup. I would personally prefer a solution where our IG would become a CG, have the right to go from use cases to draft spec, and then (and only then) spin off WGs whenever necessary.

We can discuss all options, but to be clear, even if we create a Web and TV CG, any five people could still start a CG with a charter overlap.
> Olivier
> -----------------------------
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
> If you have received it in
> error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the
> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
> immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
> sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to
> this.
> -----------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 22:08:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:16 UTC