Re: Media Source draft proposal

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:20:20 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Adaptive Streaming in HTML5 applications:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-html/2011Dec/**0120.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Dec/0120.html>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/**wiki/MPTF/ADR_Error_Codes#**
>>> Architectural_Models<http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/ADR_Error_Codes#Architectural_Models>
>>>
>>
>> If this is non-controversial, I would suggest to just keep it in this
>> forum and work towards inclusion into HTML asap. I wouldn't want to
>> delay it by moving it into a TF whose focus is elsewhere. The adaptive
>> streaming is pretty important stuff that people are asking for
>> independently of encryption and want to use in particular for live
>> streaming of HTML5 video, but also to provide more adequate quality
>> video to the users.
>>
>> The Encrypted Media TF can discuss and propose changes to this
>> proposal that are required for encryption purposes, but I do not
>> believe that it would require a fundamentally different approach to
>> adaptive streaming.
>>
>
> I agree, adaptive streaming does not need to be tied to "content
> protection" and creating a task force covering both seems like a bad idea..
> They are both related to HTMLMediaElement, but so are a lot of other
> features that would presumably not be included. Opera is interested in
> adaptive streaming and would not like to see it mixed up with the more
> controversial issues.


I agree that the Media Source & Encrypted Media proposals should not be
unnecessarily tied together. We have intentionally kept them separate
because we, at Google, believe that some constituencies interested in one
proposal may not want to participate in developing the other. We also
recognize that there are people interested in supporting both proposals and
ensuring that they properly interoperate with each other. We believe that
considering these proposals in the same forum would make it easier for the
two proposal development groups to coordinate interoperability efforts. In
no way are we saying that development of one proposal should be gated by
the other.

Aaron