W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > September 2012

Re: [MSE] Guidance on how to proceed with Bug 17002

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 09:05:42 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kEZSd2pwb+aZnAygiE442XqW=gOTn3CCy2kQvLfSB0CA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com>
Cc: "<public-html-media@w3.org>" <public-html-media@w3.org>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi Aaron,

I have asked the Media Fragment WG for clarification (and am also
cc-ing this email).

As far as I remember, features were only allowed to go into the
Proposed Recommendation document if they were shown to have two
interoperable implementations. Since at the time that wasn't the case
for track and id features, they weren't "allowed in". Thus, it is most
likely that referring to the WD document for these features is still
the correct path to take.

I think, if we can now show implementations for the track and id
features, that would be a good time to request the MF WG to update the
PR doc.


On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I had a few action items related to Bug 17002, but I've run into some
> unexpected snags that I'd like some guidance on.
> In comment 4 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 and the Proposed Recommendation 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 & 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 23:06:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:48:26 UTC