- From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 17:09:56 +0000
- To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
- CC: "Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com> (acolwell@google.com)" <acolwell@google.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Minutes -> http://www.w3.org/2012/12/04-html-media-minutes.html - DRAFT - HTML Media Task Force Teleconference 04 Dec 2012 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Dec/0000.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/12/04-html-media-irc Attendees Present paulc, adrianba, +1.425.202.aaaa, ddorwin, +1.310.210.aabb, [Microsoft], pal, Aaron_Colwell, BobLund, +1.760.533.aacc Regrets Chair Paul Cotton Scribe Adrian Bateman Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Roll call, introductions and selection of scribe 2. [6]Previous meeting minutes 3. [7]Review of action items 4. [8]Baseline documents and Bugzilla information 5. [9]Actions from F2F meeting 6. [10]Discussion of outstanding bugs 7. [11]Progression to First Public Working Draft 8. [12]Other business 9. [13]Chair and Scribe for next meeting 10. [14]Adjournment * [15]Summary of Action Items __________________________________________________________ Roll call, introductions and selection of scribe paulc: done Previous meeting minutes paulc: we took most of November off so I pointed to the TPAC F2F minutes [16]http://www.w3.org/2012/11/01-html-wg-minutes.html [16] http://www.w3.org/2012/11/01-html-wg-minutes.html paulc: we might need to pick on peoples' memory for some items Review of action items ACTION-6? <trackbot> ACTION-6 -- Aaron Colwell to give a couple of examples for section 2 -- due 2012-11-01 -- OPEN <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/6 [17] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/6 acolwell: I sent out a message right before TPAC but no one responded <acolwell> [18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012O ct/0062.html [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Oct/0062.html acolwell: I've already started work on this - i assumed that silence meant nobody objected close ACTION-6 <trackbot> ACTION-6 Give a couple of examples for section 2 closed acolwell: i'll land these changes in a couple of stages because some is removing things, some is rewriting, etc paulc: I had an action item at the WG level ... ACTION-223 ... [19]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/223 ... this is related to bug 17002 ... we had two discussions - the first implied that we might need a change to IDs for 5.1 ... later we picked up 17002 again and decided that there was a solution that removed the dependency on 18960 or any changes in HTML 5.1 ... i believe this action item isn't need for MSE? [19] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/223 acolwell: we don't require it any more but we might need to link to something paulc: the issue from TPAC is do we want to link to HTML 5.1 or HTML 5.0 acolwell: ok paulc: my plan is to close ACTION-223 since we don't need this acolwell: we don't have the dependency any more paulc: let's deal with the detail when we discuss 18960 Baseline documents and Bugzilla information paulc: aaron, you made an update on 28 nov ... one bug 19531 appears to be done but was not marked as resolved acolwell: i didn't resolve it because there was a comment in the thread that it was ambiguous if the user agent supported a MIME type that it automatically implied MSE also had to support the MIME type and i'm making some modifications that it is possible for an element to play a MIME type but MSE doesn't need to ... within a day or so i will complete this bug <paulc> Summary of Nov 28 changes: [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012N ov/0012.html [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Nov/0012.html paulc: you've mentioned immiment changes - can you summarise which are the changes you have in mind acolwell: i've been working on 19531 we just discussed, i also started on 18575 (removing sub-sections from section 2) ... concentrating on things i said i would remove and moving 2.4 and 2.5 into section 8 paulc: let's go through the bugs in the order i have them acolwell: those are the ones i started - i was about to start on more and the discussion can help drive that Actions from F2F meeting paulc: i said in the agenda that we should discuss items that are still pending ... but i'd like to go to topic 6 on bugs because it's mostly the same ... i'd like to step us through some of the items and record what is outstanding and next steps Discussion of outstanding bugs paulc: the first pair of bugs we've partially touched on 18960 and 17002 ... 17002 first, adrianba took an action item to implement a change removing the dependency on 18960 adrianba: i updated the bug this morning and assigned it to me [21]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17002#c9 [21] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17002#c9 paulc: now 18960 ... wasn't obvious from the meeting minutes what action we took [22]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18960 [22] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18960 acolwell: i believe the result was that MediaSource should generate unique IDs because the consensus was keeping them stable was more important than linking to the media ... think simon suggested we could add another property for the media id ... let me check my notes <pal> P.S.: i need to relocate and drop off IRC acolwell: david singer suggested unique and generated by media source object ... i think mark suggested a way to pass IDs to media source but don't think that ended up going anywhere paulc: can you do 18960 in two stages: put the F2F recommendation as a comment in the bug so it is recorded then is it on your TODO list? acolwell: if people are okay saying they are generated and unique then i can do that paulc: yes, but we need to put that in the bug adrianba: i think it is fine to add the unique IDs - we can always change later if we find we need the link back to media IDs acolwell: i agree paulc: then let's include this comment in the bug - we're not adding the link until we get more implementation experience ... if someone sees that and gives a reason for why it should be mandatory acolwell: part of the reason why simon mentioned having a separate field is because this allows adding without violating HTML5 paulc: next is 18962 ... this is pending a change from adrianba <paulc> See [23]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18962#c3 [23] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18962#c3 adrianba: this is XHR append ... i started work on the related actions from WebApps ... creating new XHR spec and updating Streams spec which we'll need to link to ... we can then add the append() method for Stream ... and we'll need two events for complete and error ... but i have a separate question on events paulc: do you have an ETA? adrianba: i have friday morning to work on this but i need to coordinate with aaron on the changes he's making paulc: 18963 - looks like the F2F minutes say we will throw an exception ... is this on your pending list? acolwell: yes, i was thinking of adding that as part of the next change paulc: 19531, which we've already discussed ... 17094 - we have a proposal from Bob Lund - there was an attempt to have an action on glenn to do something here but it didn't get recorded because tracker didn't recognise glenn ... i'd like to know the status of this because we have a concrete proposal ... glenn reached out to bob and myself and we've been having a side discussion about the outstanding issues ... we've been iterating on that - yesterday i proposed an alternate proposal for how to do appending that restricts out of order appending for TS ... you can't do out of order append without intervening abort call ... which is different to the other formats but the only way i can see to make TS sane ... we're making progress on it ... i need to send out a proposal to the list saying where we are acolwell: is that fair, Bob? BobLund: yes adrianba: can you put a link to the mail in the bug once sent? ... also can we get something into the spec sooner rather than later and then iterate on it separately acolwell: i'll try to get something in there then Progression to First Public Working Draft paulc: chairs met yesterday and the question i was asked by the team was when are we going to see the FPWD of media specs ... w3c is starting to get questions from outside about progress of the work ... despite all the public information about bugs, drafts, etc. but the team is asking what are the next steps ... so the question is of the pending bugs which are blocking bugs that this group wants to process before a CfC for FPWD inside the Task Force subsequently followed by sending to the WG for a CfC for publication at the WG level ... i'll give a candidate list acolwell: what are the criteria for FPWD? ... is it okay to add details but not scope? paulc: i'll try to answer but the answer is subjective ... you only have to agreement on going to FPWD not on all of the content ... many FPWD have links to bugs in the document to emphasise that some things are not final ... the second item we spoke about before the summer ... general agreement on EME and MSE - we wanted the API design to be right because it would be misleading to public a FPWD of the old design and then immediately change to a new one ... i think that item subject to some of the work in 18575 is largely done ... so the only other matter is the patent policy trigger that fires on FPWD ... members have 150 days to disclose or exclude patents on the draft ... so you want the scope to be clear to people so that if they do an active patent search then the material in the document is a good indication of where the group intends to take the document ... i think we've done the API design although there are some interesting bugs ... and on the last item, scope, we're close to done ... we're receiving pressure to show visible progress i.e. FPWD ... we don't have to be bug clean - that's Last Call ... so my question is which of the outstanding bugs does the TF want to get done before sending to WG with a list of outstanding bugs and say these are items we continue to work on but want to publish FPWD pal: one question for the editors is whether the resolution of some of these bugs will cause a substantial change to the document ... perhaps we can see if those bugs will cause major changes acolwell: i don't anticipate major changes from the remaining bugs pal: for example on the seamless transition requires structural changes that is one thing but it might just be an annexe acolwell: i can give an initial list ... 19531 (mime type), 18963 (rate limit appending), 18960 (id generation), 18962 (XHR), 18615 (buffered), 17094 (TS), 17002 (tracks), 17006 (language/kind) ... those seem structural to the API and aren't just detail paulc: that's pretty close to the list that adrian and i had acolwell: will check on 18615 paulc: does anyone want to propose something else? pal: 19784 timestamp offset in the case of a multiplex - i'd like to get an idea of how the editors plan to address that paulc: this wasn't discussed at F2F acolwell: think we didn't get to it - came in right before TPAC paulc: pal, you're saying it's hard to answer the question without knowing the outcome of this bug pal: yes acolwell: isn't this just related to considering the start of the segment where video is not audio pal: this is if audio starts before video and you want to sync on video boundary acolwell: this is about UA figuring out which timestamp to use ... i don't think this changes the append method signature adrianba: when asked how should the editors process a bug i look for the spec text in the bug ... when i don't find some then my question is to turn it back to the group and ask for a concrete proposal pal: can the other bug on seamless go in FPWD? paulc: we have to be careful because we can't put everything in or else we'll never get there acolwell: i don't think these are blocking because they won't change the API shape ... we definitely need to address the bugs but i don't think they are blocking pal: if the threshold is whether an API change is needed then i can look at the bugs and see if i think they will change API paulc: even if they will affect the API, we might still not need to take them if they're not of the same magnitude as the changes in the summer ... i'm going to take aaron's list, pal wants to consider 19673 and 19784 ... i'd like to see a plan from the editors on the list saying what order they are going to address them in and by when ... then i can go back to the team with a plan ... if it turns out one of the bugs will take a long time perhaps we'll change our mind on if we need it ... i want to see the plan in two weeks and preferably well before then ... if we have something on the list i can point people outside the TF to that ... is that okay? adrianba: yes acolwell: i think this list is easy to knock out, xhr is probably the most difficult paulc: for everyone involved in EME, you can expect the same questions next week Other business paulc: none Chair and Scribe for next meeting paulc: next meeting is dec 18 and then would be jan 1, when we probably won't meet, so it's important to make progress before the next meeting Adjournment paulc: good progress today, we're adjourned Summary of Action Items [End of minutes] __________________________________________________________ _________________________ From: Paul Cotton Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 4:15 PM To: public-html-media@w3.org Cc: Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com> (acolwell@google.com); Adrian Bateman; Mark Watson Subject: {agenda} HTML WG media telecon 2012-12-04 - media source extension action and bugs The HTML WG media teleconference meeting will occur on 2012-12-04 for up to 60 minutes from 15:00Z to 16:00Z. http://timeanddate.com/s/2ad2 Tokyo midnight, Amsterdam/Oslo 17:00, London/Dublin 16:00, New Jersey/York 11:00, Kansas City 10:00, Seattle/San Francisco 08:00. Chair of the meeting: Paul Cotton Scribe: TBD (See the end of this email for dial-in and IRC info.) == Agenda == 1. Roll call, introductions and selection of scribe 2. Previous meeting minutes Lyon F2F minutes: http://www.w3.org/2012/11/01-html-wg-minutes.html 3. Review of action items https://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/ ACTION-6: Give a couple of examples for section 2 (Aaron) https://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/6 WG action item: ACTION-223: Figure out how extension specs can refer to HTML 5.1 (Paul Cotton) http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/223 4. Baseline documents and Bugzilla information a) Media Source Extensions editor's draft: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html Status as of Dec 3: Last updated in Nov 28. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Nov/0012.html b) Media Source Extension bugs: http://tinyurl.com/6pdnzej Status as of Dec 3: 16 bugs (see list at end of agenda) 5. Actions from F2F meeting Lyon F2F minutes: http://www.w3.org/2012/11/01-html-wg-minutes.html Status: We should discuss which F2F items are still pending and the schedule for additional editorial work. 6. Discussion of outstanding bugs 7. Progression to First Public Working Draft 8. Other Business 9. Chair and Scribe for next meeting 10. Adjournment == Dial-in and IRC Details == Zakim teleconference bridge: +1.617.761.6200, conference 63342 ("media") https://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#s_5366 Supplementary IRC chat (logged): #html-media on irc.w3.org port 6665 or port 80 Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 ID▲ Product Comp Assignee▲ Status▲ Resolution Summary Changed 17002 HTML WG Media So adrianba NEW --- Specify a mechanism to determine which SourceBuffer an AudioTrack,VideoTrack, or TextTrack belong to. 2012-10-22 18592 HTML WG Media So adrianba NEW --- How much is "enough data to ensure uninterrupted playback" 2012-10-22 18960 HTML WG Media So adrianba NEW --- Define how AudioTrack.id & VideoTrack.id are generated 2012-10-22 18962 HTML WG Media So adrianba NEW --- Allow appending with XHR 2012-10-22 18963 HTML WG Media So adrianba NEW --- Provide a mechanism for rate limiting appending 2012-10-22 19531 HTML WG Media So adrianba NEW --- simplify MIME type capability detection Wed 19:06 19673 HTML WG Media So adrianba NEW --- Seamless audio signal transitions at splice points 2012-10-24 19676 HTML WG Media So adrianba NEW --- timestampOffset accuracy 2012-10-24 19784 HTML WG Media So adrianba NEW --- timestampOffset with multiplexed Media Segments 2012-10-30 18575 HTML WG Media So acolwell ASSI --- Section 2. Source Buffer Model should be non-normative 2012-10-22 18615 HTML WG Media So acolwell ASSI --- Define how SourceBuffer.buffered maps to HTMLMediaElement.buffered 2012-10-22 18642 HTML WG Media So acolwell ASSI --- Handle timestamp overflow in append(data) 2012-10-22 17006 HTML WG Media So adrianba ASSI --- <track> Setting track language & kind when the information is in a manifest 2012-10-22 17094 HTML WG Media So b.lund ASSI --- Define segment formats for MPEG2-TS 2012-10-22 18400 HTML WG Media So watsonm ASSI --- Define and document timestamp heuristics 2012-10-22 18933 HTML WG Media So watsonm ASSI --- Segment byte boundaries are not defined 2012-10-21 16 bugs found. Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 17:13:37 UTC