RE: MSE V1Editorial issues

Comments:


-          appendStream should be removed.

-          We still believe VideoPlayBackQuality should stay, with the existing caveats.

-          It may be that dropped frames is most important.  We implement totalFrameDelay, but I’m not sure how comparable it is across UAs.

-          We do not currently support TrackDefault.  The language below suggests that a minimal implementation is necessary.  Is that to retain it or period?

Jerry

From: Matt Wolenetz [mailto:wolenetz@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:13 PM
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Cc: Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com>; Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>; public-hme-editors@w3.org
Subject: Re: MSE V1Editorial issues

Inline:

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com<mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>> wrote:

> I'll update VPQ details (#69)

https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/69




Matt: Getting agreement on the handling of the MSE “features at risk” is now the “long pole” on figuring out how to do a Proposed Recommendation CfC.  Please do this ASAP so others have time to respond.


I've posted my response to #69 (VPQ): https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/69#issuecomment-236024589


Jerry, Mark:  Please watch for Matt’s update and respond ASAP.

>The following features are at risk and may be removed:

  *   The appendStream<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#widl-SourceBuffer-appendStream-void-ReadableStream-stream-unsigned-long-long-maxSize> method on the sourceBuffer<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#sourcebuffer> object and algorithm steps that are used only by it.
  *   The VideoPlaybackQuality<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#videoplaybackquality> object and the HTMLVideoElement Extensions<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#htmlvideoelement-extensions> that use it.
  *   The totalFrameDelay<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#widl-VideoPlaybackQuality-totalFrameDelay> attribute on the VideoPlaybackQuality<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#videoplaybackquality> object.
  *   The TrackDefault<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#idl-def-TrackDefault> object and its related objects, attributes, methods and algorithms, including: TrackDefaultList<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#idl-def-TrackDefaultList>, SourceBuffer.trackDefaults<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#widl-SourceBuffer-trackDefaults>, Default track language<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#sourcebuffer-default-track-language>, Default track label<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#sourcebuffer-default-track-label>, and Default track kinds<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#sourcebuffer-default-track-kinds>. Implementations still must at least include trivial versions of these default track language/label/kinds algorithms that are used by the initialization segment received algorithm<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#sourcebuffer-init-segment-received>. These trivial versions would behave as follows: Trivial default track language and Trivial default track label algorithms must return an empty string, and Trivial default kinds algorithm must return a sequence with a single empty string element in it.

I believe we have consensus to remove the appendStream method.  Issue-69 is about the VideoPlaybackQuality object and the totalFrameDelay featrues.  See above.



Where do we stand on the TrackDefault object?  We discussed it at the last meeting but it was not obvious if we have two implementations since it is not yet implemented in Edge.

http://www.w3.org/2016/07/19-html-media-minutes.html

Jerry, can you please respond on this?  Our test suite is woefully failing across the board for all but Chrome (apart from the IDL issues for Chrome which are also failing at the moment -- I'm working to fix that too). TrackDefaults certainly seems at risk, though IMHO it belongs in MSE much more than VPQ.



/paulc





From: Matt Wolenetz [mailto:wolenetz@google.com<mailto:wolenetz@google.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 10:54 PM
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com<mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>>
Cc: Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com<mailto:jdsmith@microsoft.com>>; public-hme-editors@w3.org<mailto:public-hme-editors@w3.org>

Subject: Re: MSE V1Editorial issues



PR #132 (for #98) is ready for review.

I'll update VPQ details (#69), then begin work on #99 and triaging #124.



That leaves:

  *   #110: IMHO, not blocking V1. Ok by me if not fixed in V1. Mark/Jerry: agreed?
  *   #104: IMHO, not blocking V1. Ok by me if not fixed in V1. Mark/Jerry: agreed?
  *   Mark's PR#127 (for #83) needs review comments addressed. Mark, can you please provide an ETA?
  *   #74 (Pending Phillippe). Is this required prior to PR CfC on Aug 2? This seems at risk, if so.
  *   #48 (Assigned to Jerry): Jerry, can you please provide an ETA?
  *   #45 (Assigned to Jerry): Jerry, can you please provide an ETA?

Matt











On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com<mailto:wolenetz@google.com>> wrote:

Update:



With Mark's clarification, #128 (for #93) LGTM (% merging and regenerating index.html).



I just did a quick (with no review) merge of #131 (for #130) since it seems benign.



Mark's PR #127 (for #83) will need potentially significant work. To let him focus on that, and to help Jerry, too, I'll take a look at fixing #99 and #98 shortly.



On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com<mailto:wolenetz@google.com>> wrote:

PR#128 (for issue #93): I posted a question since this bit of HTML5->5.1 is unclear to me and I want to make sure that we don't leak cross-origin MediaSource stuff (e.g. a malicious canvas origin shouldn't be able to scrape media from an MSE HTMLMediaElement from a different origin).



On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com<mailto:wolenetz@google.com>> wrote:

PR#127 (for issue #83) needs some fixing. I've commented on the PR (type links are missing where they had been included previously)



On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com<mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>> wrote:

I am not sure about Philippe’s availability.  I included his item for completeness.



Sent from my Windows 10 phone



From: Matt Wolenetz<mailto:wolenetz@google.com>
Sent: July 26, 2016 14:26
To: Jerry Smith (WPT)<mailto:jdsmith@microsoft.com>
Cc: Paul Cotton<mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>; public-hme-editors@w3.org<mailto:public-hme-editors@w3.org>

Subject: Re: MSE V1Editorial issues



Regarding Philippe's issue #74, is he available this week to work on it?



On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com<mailto:wolenetz@google.com>> wrote:

I've just produced a PR to fix #126, and will review mwatson's PRs shortly (and report VPQ details in that V1 issue, too).



On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com<mailto:jdsmith@microsoft.com>> wrote:

Also, PR #127 is technically fine, but would benefit from some manual cleanup around the IDL entries.  They render fine, but aren’t very readable when editing (or reviewing changes).



Jerry



From: Jerry Smith (WPT)
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 10:42 AM
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com<mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>>; Matthew Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com<mailto:wolenetz@google.com>> (wolenetz@google.com<mailto:wolenetz@google.com>) <wolenetz@google.com<mailto:wolenetz@google.com>>
Cc: public-hme-editors@w3.org<mailto:public-hme-editors@w3.org>
Subject: RE: MSE V1Editorial issues



PR #128 LGTM, but lacks a revision history entry.



Issue #126 (https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/126) from Matt asks if we should continue to maintain the history.  Most W3C specs do not seem to do so.  Web Audio has a link to a log from GitHub and I think Mercurial.  That seems useful, though I’m not sure how much we want to invest in recovering the old history.



Jerry



From: Paul Cotton
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 8:14 AM
To: Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com<mailto:jdsmith@microsoft.com>>; Matthew Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com<mailto:wolenetz@google.com>> (wolenetz@google.com<mailto:wolenetz@google.com>) <wolenetz@google.com<mailto:wolenetz@google.com>>
Cc: public-hme-editors@w3.org<mailto:public-hme-editors@w3.org>
Subject: RE: MSE V1Editorial issues



> I believe I still have outstanding PRs on the spec which require review. I'll return to editing when those two things are done.



Jerry, Matt:  Can you please check on Mark’s two PRs ASAP?

https://github.com/w3c/media-source/pull/128 for ISSUE-93

https://github.com/w3c/media-source/pull/127 for ISSUE-83



/paulc



From: Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 11:12 AM
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com<mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>>
Cc: Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com<mailto:jdsmith@microsoft.com>>; Philippe Le Hegaret (plh@w3.org<mailto:plh@w3.org>) <plh@w3.org<mailto:plh@w3.org>>; public-hme-editors@w3.org<mailto:public-hme-editors@w3.org>
Subject: Re: MSE V1Editorial issues



I am prioritizing work on the tests. I believe I still have outstanding PRs on the spec which require review. I'll return to editing when those two things are done.



...Mark

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 26, 2016, at 8:03 AM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com<mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>> wrote:

We still have 7 V1Editorial issues to resolve.  Are these issues going to be dealt with THIS week?



Mark:

https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/99


https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/93


https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/83




Jerry:

https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/98


https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/48


https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/45




Philippe:

https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/74




/paulc



Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada

17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3

Tel: (425) 705-9596<tel:%28425%29%20705-9596> Fax: (425) 936-7329<tel:%28425%29%20936-7329>