- From: Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 12:21:28 -0700
- To: "<public-html-media@w3.org>" <public-html-media@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAA0c1bC1=pBYU0h=bcN-v+1uRuN1PdVw2Bys4CJNxoP3r3kd2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hi, I had a few action items related to Bug 17002<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17002>, but I've run into some unexpected snags that I'd like some guidance on. In comment 4 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17002#c4> of the bug I pointed out some inconsistencies between the Media Fragments spec and the HTML 5 spec. When I started investigating how to file a bug against the Media Fragments spec, I discovered that Latest Editor's draft<http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/> and the Proposed Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-media-frags-20120315/> have very different text. The Proposed Recommendation, which appears to be more recent, doesn't even have the "Track Dimension" section. Digging throught the mailing list history it appears that this was going to be moved to an "advanced" spec, but the links to that point to a document that has no mention of the "id" or "track" dimensions. This raises a few questions that I'd like help with. 1. Which document am I supposed pay attention to? 2. If I should be looking at the Proposed Recommendation, then should I file a bug against the HTML5 spec that asks to remove the references to the MediaFragment spec in the AudioTrack.id<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/media-elements.html#dom-audiotrack-id> & VideoTrack.id<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/media-elements.html#dom-videotrack-id> since the track dimension doesn't exist in that document? 3. Are there plans to develop the advanced Media Fragments spec? The mailing-list looks pretty dead these days. 4. If the answer to #2 is yes and the answer to #3 is no, then should a bug be filed to remove the id attribute since it appears that it was created for MediaFragment interop? 5. Does it still make sense to file a bug against TextTrack for the missing id field since it appears the primary reason for this field was to interact with MediaFragments? 6. Should I change the proposed fix to Bug 17002 to the following so the solution is independent of the id field? partial interface MediaSource { SourceBuffer? getSourceBuffer(VideoTrack videoTrack); SourceBuffer? getSourceBuffer(AudioTrack audioTrack); SourceBuffer? getSourceBuffer(TextTrack textTrack); } Aaron
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 19:21:56 UTC