- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:59:49 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18642 --- Comment #4 from Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> 2012-08-29 07:59:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #0) > > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html#dom-append > > > > There's already a check to trigger MEDIA_ERR_DECODE when any modified timestamp > > would underflow (< 0) but nothing about how to handle overflow. This is > > particularly likely with 32-bit timestamp fields, but can of course happen > > regardlessly. > > > > Suggestion: If any modified timestamp would overflow in the representation used > > in the byte stream, trigger a MEDIA_ERR_DECODE. > > > > In addition, the byte stream specs could place the necessary requirements to > > make this situation as unlikely as possible. > > The MPEG-2 TS Presentation Time Stamp and Decode Time Stamp fields are 33bit > counts of a 90KHz clock, which will rollover every 26.5 hours. This is a normal > event in a linear (e.g. broadcast) video channel. This does not represent a > decode error. It should be the byte stream specification that defines what time stamps can be represented. If MPEG-2 has no such restrictions, nothing would be considered overflowing and the condition will not be hit. > It is not clear if/how a receiver could make this situation unlikely while > still remaining compliant with the transport stream specification. The receiver cannot do anything. What I mean is that the byte stream specs should recommend using the largest possible timestamps (I've been told that MPEG-4 supports both 32 and 64 bits) and as large-grained a timescale as possible. But this is just spec fluff, the main thrust of this bug is to handle overflow on the receiving side for MPEG-4 and WebM. -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 07:59:56 UTC