RE: MPEG2-TS activity in Bugzilla

Yes, the text is non-normative.

From: Duncan Rowden [mailto:Duncan.Rowden@bbc.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 12:20 PM
To: Glenn Adams; Henri Sivonen
Cc: public-html WG
Subject: RE: MPEG2-TS activity in Bugzilla

I don’t think anybody is proposing to introducing support for specific container formats.

Bug 17094 suggests adding non-normative text to the Media Source Extension Proposal in addition to the non-normative text that is already provided (http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html#byte-stream-formats).

The other two bugs are simply using mpeg2 as an example for multiplexed media.

Duncan


From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
Sent: 07 June 2012 16:14
To: Henri Sivonen
Cc: public-html WG
Subject: Re: MPEG2-TS activity in Bugzilla


On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi<mailto:hsivonen@iki.fi>> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Alex Giladi <alex.giladi@huawei.com<mailto:alex.giladi@huawei.com>> wrote:
> It is codec-independent -- it's only concerned with use of MPEG-2 Transport Stream as a container.
Right, but usually there is some concrete motivation behind
introducing support codec-independent containers. I'm curious what the
concrete motivation is.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:
> Could you supply some reference(s) [to bugzilla entries]?
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17094

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14492#c6

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14422#c3


thanks

> Do you have any comment on the use of MPEG-2 video?
Personally, I think it would be a terrible idea to introduce an MPEG-2
video dependency to the Web platform.

agreed (there should be no mandatory dependency from HTML5 spec or its extensions) to MPEG-2; i.e., there should be no normative statement that translates to 'MPEG-2 *must* be supported in a UA'; however, that doesn't mean we can't have text prescribing behavior in the case that MPEG-2 *is* supported;


> In general, it is a commercial video requirement to support
> MPEG-2 video, either in PS or TS forms (or both).
It appears that in the above sentence "commercial video" is not an
euphemism for content that Hollywood requires to be wrapped in DRM,
since H.264 plus DRM already seems to be used for that case.

What sort of use case, concretely, does "commercial video" mean in the
above sentence? (I have my guesses, but I'd rather not proceed to
discuss strawmen without confirming first.)

to elaborate, the requirement is based on legacy usage, and not related to distribution agreements



http://www.bbc.co.uk

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.