Re: CfC: Create Media Task Force

Comcast also supports the creation of the Media Task Force to consider both media encryption and media source extensions. HTML5 improvements can make it easier to move the widespread usage of encrypted media and adaptive streaming from object element plug-ins to the HTML5 Media elements.

This will extend the HTML5 Media element benefits to more media, including:
- Making encrypted and adaptive media accessible to people with disabilities leveraging the extensive work by the Accessibility TF
- Enabling consistent user interface controls for all media
- Supporting new adaptive, common-encryption formats that support multiple decryption clients

On Apr 3, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Paul Cotton wrote:
> 9. The first task of the Media TF will be to draft its scope and initial work plan.  This scope will include work on the Encrypted Media proposal [2] in order produce a candidate first public Working Draft.

We believe the best initial work plan needs to be broad enough to include not only refining the current Encrypted Media proposal, but also investigate other alternative architectures. In particular, there have been several legitimate concerns raised about the Encrypted Media proposal. The Media Task Force should look at both (a) improving the submitted proposal and (b) inviting alternate proposals for handling encrypted media.

As media creators and distributors, Comcast wants to deliver our media to our customers on any device. Support for open source browsers is required. We're not only interested in widely used PC browsers, but also in other browsers, such as those used in TVs and other CE devices. The ideal would be for encrypted media to be handled as openly and safely as HTTPS, though I don't know how close we can get to that.

On Apr 16, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> Is name that can express its intended scope without incorrectly implying that all future HTML5 media work should be done there?
Paul's original resolution stated "The Media TF will not make final decisions about its scope, work plan or work products. These decisions will be made by HTML WG. Note: The HTML WG might decide at some future point in time to delegate more responsibility to the Media TF." This places the decision for which work should be done by this TF clearly the responsibility of the full WG, regardless of the name. Media Task Force seems as good as any, but it in no way defines the work assignments.

> It's not immediately clear to me what the common thread is between Encrypted Media and Media Source.
Common encryption formats are typically used in conjunction with adaptive streaming to allow video access to devices with different bandwidth requirements and different decryption requirements. MPEG DASH, for instance, references both adaptive streaming and common encryption. Regardless of whether the HTML WG assigns the Media Source draft to the Media TF, the Media TF will likely have to consider keeping the two APIs in synch.

> Since these both come from the Web & TV Interest Group and seem related to issues for broadcast-quality content, how about "HTML WG Web & TV Task Force"?
Again, I don't think the name defines the work scope. For example, the Web & TV IG is considering issues, such as Home Networking, which you also wouldn't want to have an implied assignment to this TF. Personally, I like Media better than TV, because as a company distributing both film and TV to the web, "media" is the usual term for both and also aligns with the HTML5 Media element.


Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2012 05:57:00 UTC