- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:15:11 +0100
- To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
[with the correct subject heading, apologies for the duplicate]
An agenda for tomorrow's telecon follow ...
-----------
Dear all,
I just realized that the minutes of our last telecon (07/10/09 sic!)
have not been sent yet to the mailing list. Here they are ...
Cheers.
Raphaël
-------------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
07 Oct 2009
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Oct/0000.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/07-mediafrag-irc
Attendees
Present
Erik, Raphael, Jack, Yves, Conrad, Davy
Regrets
Silvia, Michael
Chair
Erik, Raphael
Scribe
conrad
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]1. admin
2. [6]2. UC & Requirements doc
3. [7]3. Specification
4. [8]4. Test Cases
5. [9]7. AOB
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 07 October 2009
<raphael> Chair: Erik, Raphael
<scribe> scribenick: conrad
1. admin
<raphael> Last week telecon minutes:
[11]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/30-mediafrag-minutes.html
[11] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/30-mediafrag-minutes.html
<Yves> +1 to accept minutes
<erik> +1
<raphael> +1
<davy> +1
RESOLUTION: to accept the minutes of 2009-09-30
raphael: i have reworked the use case and req documents
2. UC & Requirements doc
<raphael> ACTIOn-116?
<trackbot> ACTION-116 -- Davy Van Deursen to davy And Erik to review
UC & Requirements document before pub -- due 2009-10-07 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[12]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/116
[12] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/116
ACTION-105?
<trackbot> ACTION-105 -- Raphaël Troncy to address all comments and
write a reply to MAWG -- due 2009-09-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[13]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/105
[13] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/105
ACTION-106?
<trackbot> ACTION-106 -- Raphaël Troncy to draft a paragraph
explaining upfront in the document why we are doing that ...
justification for the MPEG community -- due 2009-09-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[14]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/106
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/106
close action-116
<trackbot> ACTION-116 Davy And Erik to review UC & Requirements
document before pub closed
close action-105
<trackbot> ACTION-105 Address all comments and write a reply to MAWG
closed
close action-106
<trackbot> ACTION-106 Draft a paragraph explaining upfront in the
document why we are doing that ... justification for the MPEG
community closed
<raphael> Some unanswered questions:
[15]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-req
s/
[15]
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/
<raphael> Werner suggests we don't use the term "Mask"
<davy> continuous view?
<erik> "continous part"?
<raphael> Replace "mask" by a "single segment"
jackjansen, just add a statement that we don't want holes
<raphael> Jack: we don't want holes
raphael: section 3.1 figure explains context, but the last row
"example image track" illustrates that we can take a blob of an
image, but the text doesn't consider this
raphael, case, eg. spatial regions of images
phillip suggested we specify that we also support spatial ranges
jack: what is the difference (from our point of view) between text
and image track?
i think the overlapping content is the main thing
so for temporal addressing there can be multiple text elements which
match a temporal region
jack: for this draft perhaps we should only specify audio+video
and chasing dependencies of previous text elements (ie. working out
which are active now) can be more difficult than eg. video keyframes
raphael: we should publish, including these minor changes
jack: editorial note by silvia is a question to the reader
... editorial note by dave singer, needs to be addressed (sec 3.12)?
"The fallback plan needs to be clarified. We must be able to handle
the way the # is already used, e.g. in YouTube, without breaking
what is already working."
raphael: the wg. has discussed that we need to be
backwards-compatible with existing implementations as much as
possible
eg. youtube syntax, and we are still discussing what the behaviour
should be
so is the vague phrasing of compatibility with "widely implemented
solutions" enough?
raphael: we have already discussed that eg. the youtube way could be
a different syntax we specify, with explicity hms
jack: ok then we should add a sentence about that, and a note to
suggest that parsers recognize foreign syntax and stay away from it
... so if we draft a paragraph and send it to dave, see what he
thinks
raphael: ok, but also that is not blocking the publication of
documents
<raphael>
[16]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-req
s/
[16]
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/
Proposed to publish documents currently staged at
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-req
s/
[17]
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/
<raphael> +1 for publication
<davy> +1
<Yves> +1
<erik> +1
<jackjansen> +1
<nessy> +1
+1
RESOLUTION: to publish documents currently staged at
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-req
s/
[18]
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/
3. specification
3. Specification
action-117?
<trackbot> ACTION-117 -- Raphaël Troncy to review Silvia's summary
of her blogpost, i.e. the Section 3 of the spec -- due 2009-10-07 --
OPEN
<trackbot>
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/117
[19] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/117
raphael: no progress on 117 and 112, pending comments by silvia
<raphael> Raphael: suggest to postpone decision on publishing this
doc to next week
Raphael: after 117 and 112 are complete, we can think about
publishing the documents, as they don't currently reflect the
progress we have made
4. Test Cases
all actions on test cases are pending
jackjansen, please notify the mailing list when spec changes are
made
nessy: we should implement cvs commit emails etc. etc.
<nessy> conrad: yes, but we won't have access to the cvs management
box, I don't hink
<nessy> Yves would know if that was possible
<jackjansen> I second silvia's proposal
usually there is a separate mailing list for cvs-commits, and a
post-hook added to cvs to mail commit details to that list
eg. media-fragment-notifications or something like that
<scribe> ACTION: Yves to request admins to set up a cvs
notifications mailing list and notifications [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/07-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-119 - Request admins to set up a cvs
notifications mailing list and notifications [on Yves Lafon - due
2009-10-14].
<raphael> Silvia, it just meant we agree on your comment today that
the spec doc is not yet ready for publication
<raphael> ... but it is pending on my actions
<raphael> ... when they are done, I think the missing sections will
be here and the document publishable
Raphael: AOB?
7. AOB
Raphael: AOB?
<nessy> raphael: I agree :)
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Yves to request admins to set up a cvs notifications
mailing list and notifications [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/07-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
--
Raphaël Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Tuesday, 17 November 2009 16:15:54 UTC