Re: Media Resource In-band Tracks Community Group Launched

Olivier, Mark and All,

Sorry to catch folks by surprise and I welcome all participation in the
In-band media CG.

The focus[1], use cases[2] and requirements[3] of the TF are very distinct
from the CG proposal[4]. I see very little, if any, overlap. Given the
focus of the Media API TF, I can understand that some of its participants
might have an interest in the CG topic and I hope those TF participants
join the CG.

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs#Media_APIs_Task_Force_.5Bapis.
5D
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Requirements
[4] http://www.w3.org/community/inbandtracks/

Bob



On 10/22/13 4:07 PM, "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
wrote:

>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. [Š] 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 22:13:41 UTC