- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:16:15 +0100
- To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Dear all,
The minutes of this week's telecon are available for review at
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/10-mediafrag-minutes.html (and in text format
below). Thanks Conrad for having scribed (added to the ScribeList).
Cheers.
Raphaël
------------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
17 Feb 2010
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Feb/0037.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/17-mediafrag-irc
Attendees
Present
Jack, Yves, Raphael, Silvia, Michael, Conrad, Erik
Regrets
Davy
Chair
Erik, Raphael
Scribe
Conrad, Raphael
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]1. ADmin
2. [6]2. F2F Agenda
3. [7]3. SPECIFICATION
4. [8]4. Test Cases
5. [9]5. AOB
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 17 February 2010
Silvia, are you planning to join?
<mhausenblas> ACTION-140?
<trackbot> ACTION-140 -- Michael Hausenblas to create a more
readable version of the TC classification at
[11]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/mftc -- due
2010-02-17 -- OPEN
[11] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/mftc
<trackbot>
[12]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/140
[12] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/140
<mhausenblas> [13]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/
[13] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/
<mhausenblas>
[14]http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xslfile=http%3A%2F%2F
www.w3.org%2F2008%2FWebVideo%2FFragments%2FTC%2Fmftc2html.xslt&xmlfi
le=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2008%2FWebVideo%2FFragments%2FTC%2Fmftc
.rdf&content-type=&submit=transform
[14]
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xslfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2008%2FWebVideo%2FFragments%2FTC%2Fmftc2html.xslt&xmlfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2008%2FWebVideo%2FFragments%2FTC%2Fmftc.rdf&content-type=&submit=transform
1. ADmin
Accept the minutes at
[15]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/10-mediafrag-minutes.html
[15] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/10-mediafrag-minutes.html
<mhausenblas> +1
+1
<jackjansen> +1
2. F2F Agenda
F2F Meeting
[16]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/FithF2FAgenda
[16] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/FithF2FAgenda
<conrad> raphael: the agenda is open for suggestions
3. SPECIFICATION
<conrad> * ACTION-134: Erik to mark up the spec with normative and
informative classes [postpone?]
<conrad> * ACTION-139: Silvia to mark up specified sections as
implementable
<conrad> raphael: silvia is not here but she has done 138 and 138
(?)
<conrad> close action-138
<trackbot> ACTION-138 Include Erik's diagrams into specification
closed
<conrad> close action-139
<trackbot> ACTION-139 Mark up specified sections as implementable
closed
Current document:
[17]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spe
c/
[17]
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/
<conrad> raphael: regarding section 5.1.3
<Yves>
[18]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spe
c/#processing-name-value-lists
[18]
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#processing-name-value-lists
<conrad> raphael: silvia thinks we should also mark it as
implementable
<conrad> raphael: the only thing refraining her from that atm is an
objection from jack
<conrad> raphael: jack notes that we have not yet concluded if an
unspecified dimension should be a zero or not
<conrad> raphael: we need to decide how strict/lax we need to be
with interpretations of the spec
<Yves> what happens with
[19]http://www.example.com/foo.m4a#t=12-20&this_is_not_a_mediafrag
will return a valid mediafrag using 5.1.3
[19] http://www.example.com/foo.m4a#t=12-20&this_is_not_a_mediafrag
<conrad> jack: i still think that being relaxed is fine, but if
something is over-specified, such as specifying two time prefixes or
two spatial prefixes, there would be too much scope for error
<conrad> jack: for every cascading rule you can find a use case,
where one overrides or extends the other
<conrad> jack: i don't feel confident about stating that one rule
can handle 90% of cases
<conrad> jack: if there is no clear rule, eg. saying
t=100,200&t=20,40, then how should that be interpreted? there are 3
obvious possible interpretations, and each has people backing it
<conrad> jack: i'm perfectly happy with name=value pairs we don't
understand, that is up to implementations
<conrad> jack: if there is a name=value pair that we do understand,
we should be stricter about that
<conrad> yves: this is test 3e (?) -- we should be clear about
handling of things that are not recognized, partial media fragments
etc.
<conrad> yves: a validator should provide errors
<conrad> jack: i agree
<conrad> raphael; for a good combination of things that we can
recognize, jack is saying that we shouldn't try to understand what
they are doing, but specify a rule
<Yves> things that can be recovered could be close strings, like
xyhw -> xywh (obvious typo)
<conrad> jack: yes, according to our spec it should throw an error
<conrad> jack: just like we cannot accept id and t combined should
give the same result as two t's combined
<jackjansen> My pref would by: replace all "Any previously set value
is discarded" with "it is an error if a value was previously set"
<conrad> silvia: we need to resolve how these ambiguous cases and
combined parameters are handled
<conrad> silvia: i think what jack in particular objected to was
philip's suggestion that any previous key=value settings are
discarded on error
<erik> rssagent, draft minutes
<Yves> +1 to error instead of discarding
<conrad> jack: i would suggest that instead of discarding newly set
disallowed values, an error should be thrown
<conrad> jack: from a (parser/UA) implementors point of view, simply
discarding seems simpler, but a content author may expect cascading
<Yves> I can think of an intersection of t #t=10,20&t=6,12&intersect
<Yves> not a mediafrag => mediafrag recognition fails
<conrad> jack: i cannot see of a clear rule that prefers discarding
or cascading, so we should just specify an error
Jack: we cannot find a general way for cascading rules, so throw an
error
<Yves> (defined in another spec, for example)
<conrad> silvia: i agree -- discarding would just encourage lazy
programming
<conrad> yves: if there is no specification for an intersection, no
problem, but in our case if we don't flag an error then we have to
specify it as a valid media fragment
<conrad> yves: i agree that it should be an error
<conrad> conrad: what is an error
<conrad> raphael: it is not a media fragment
<conrad> silvia: it must be simply discarded and the fragment cannot
be resolved as a media fragment
<conrad> silvia: [analogy to html page]
<jackjansen> We seem to have moved to 5.1.5
<conrad> raphael: but in the case of an HTML UA, everything is
happening within the UA, not on the network
<conrad> silvia: i think it is the same for both html and media
resources
<jackjansen> (and I think that that editorial that is attributed to
Michael is actually mine:-)
<conrad> silvia: case 1) for html if the # cannot be resolved, the
full resource is displayed
yes Jack, but you defer it to Michael a long time ago :-)
<conrad> silvia: for media, if the # cannot be understood, the whole
resource is shown from the beginning
<jackjansen> good:-)
<conrad> silvia: case 2) if the resource has previously been loaded:
same behaviour, HTML goes to top of page, media should go to the
beginning
<conrad> raphael: perhaps we should merge section 5.1.3, 5.1.5 on
these topics
<conrad> jack: for error handling, i think we should make sure that
put this in informative text not normative text
<conrad> jack: because the best case for handling an error is up to
the application
<Yves> also authoring tools should report errors
<conrad> jack: in the case of eg. pay-per-view content the UA may
offer to interfere and confirm with the user
<conrad> silvia: i agree
Raphael: there is the proposal of making 5.1.5 into a full section 6
<conrad> silvia: michael, did you get a chance to review the list of
error cases presented last week
<mhausenblas> Michael: I agree
<jackjansen> silvia, url?
<mhausenblas> silence == agreement ;)
<conrad> silvia: 5.1.5: we need to look at errors in each of the
dimensions (time, track, id)
<conrad> silvia: and then if we look at combined dimensions then we
need more cases
<conrad> silvia: hence i'm suggesting to make it into a full section
<scribe> ACTION: Conrad to add a paragraph in the section 5.2.1 that
further clarify the role of the UA for rendering a media fragment
[recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-141 - Add a paragraph in the section 5.2.1
that further clarify the role of the UA for rendering a media
fragment [on Conrad Parker - due 2010-02-24].
<mhausenblas> hey!
<Zakim> mhausenblas, you wanted to note re appendix
<conrad> michael: i would prefer to have the POV of an implementer
that needs/wants to run the test cases
<conrad> michael: from implementer's pov it should be as easy as
possible to do their [verification?] work
<scribe> scribenick: Raphael
<scribe> scribenick: raphael
<jackjansen> +1
Suggestion: replace all "Any previously set value is discarded" with
"it is an error if a value was previously set" in 5.1.3 and remove
editorial note of Jack
<silvia> +1
<mhausenblas> s/Suggegstion/Proposal:
+1
<Yves> +1
<mhausenblas> +1
<conrad> +1
RESOLUTION: replace all "Any previously set value is discarded" with
"it is an error if a value was previously set" in 5.1.3 and remove
editorial note of Jack
<scribe> ACTION: Troncy to apply this change in the section 5.1.3
(jack's note) [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-142 - Apply this change in the section
5.1.3 (jack's note) [on Raphaël Troncy - due 2010-02-24].
Raphael: Providing this change, can we mark this section as
implementable?
Jack: adding one more note about id?
Silvia: I would just say that everything concerning the time
dimension is implementable, the rest is still under discussion
Jack: I would not move 5.1.5 in an Appendix
Silvia: I would move a section 6 and see later if we move it in an
appendix depending the length of the document
<scribe> ACTION: Silvia to move 5.1.5 into a new section [recorded
in [22]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-143 - Move 5.1.5 into a new section [on
Silvia Pfeiffer - due 2010-02-24].
Raphael: Section 5.1.1 is related to ISSUE-13
ISSUE-13?
<trackbot> ISSUE-13 -- Write a IETF draft for proposing how to
register the fragment scheme for all media types -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[23]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/13
[23] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/13
Silvia: move this section to the top after the introduction
<scribe> ACTION: Silvia to move the section 5.1.1 to the top
[recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-144 - Move the section 5.1.1 to the top
[on Silvia Pfeiffer - due 2010-02-24].
Raphael: Section 5.1.4, general interpretation of media fragments,
we have so far a HTML5 browser type of UA in mind
... What are the other UA we are talking about?
Silvia: I'm not sure if we should say that all browsers should
render the same way
ACTION-141?
<trackbot> ACTION-141 -- Conrad Parker to add a paragraph in the
section 5.2.1 that further clarify the role of the UA for rendering
a media fragment -- due 2010-02-24 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[25]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/141
[25] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/141
Silvia: perhaps start this discussion within the HTML5 fora
<conrad> a non-browser UA could be a video editor as a consumer of
media fragments
Jack: maybe we should turn the rendering into a new section as well
Silvia: I like that too
Jack: so we have sections about Syntax, Formal processing and then
Guidelines and Errors
Silvia: how far we should go in terms of saying something about
rendering of a media fragment is still a matter of discussion
Raphael: other UA ... video editor, qt player, youtube/dailymotion
iPhone app, etc.
Silvia: I will start this dicussion thread within the Accessibility
task Force of the HTML5 WG
<jackjansen> but also think non-rendering apps (metadata annotation)
Silvia: there are developers there that will udnerstand what we are
talking about
Raphael: I'm uncomfortable with the fact that sections 3, 4.1 and
5.1.1 are marked as non-normative
... could we just comment that?
Silvia: I tend to ignore that, I rather looked at implementable or
not
4. Test Cases
ACTON-140?
ACTION-140?
<trackbot> ACTION-140 -- Michael Hausenblas to create a more
readable version of the TC classification at
[26]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/mftc -- due
2010-02-17 -- OPEN
[26] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/mftc
<trackbot>
[27]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/140
[27] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/140
[28]http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xslfile=http%3A%2F%2F
www.w3.org%2F2008%2FWebVideo%2FFragments%2FTC%2Fmftc2html.xslt&xmlfi
le=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2008%2FWebVideo%2FFragments%2FTC%2Fmftc
.rdf&content-type=&submit=transform
[28]
http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xslfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2008%2FWebVideo%2FFragments%2FTC%2Fmftc2html.xslt&xmlfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2008%2FWebVideo%2FFragments%2FTC%2Fmftc.rdf&content-type=&submit=transform
<mhausenblas> [29]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/
[29] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/
Michael: just simple table layout
... do you have any suggestions?
close ACTION-140
<trackbot> ACTION-140 Create a more readable version of the TC
classification at
[30]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/mftc closed
[30] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/mftc
5. AOB
Silvia: I have mentionned a list of errors for the time dimension
... I would appreciate if we could include that into the TC
... and add them in the Section 6
... it would be good if could agree on that
Michael: I will add these TC in the good place (my action-118) by
next week
Raphael: ok, so we discuss that next week
[adjourned]
<mhausenblas> FYI: I've now updated
[31]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCasesOverview
[31] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCasesOverview
<mhausenblas> so that there is a direct link to the MFTC
categorisation and tabular rendering
<mhausenblas> cya
<mhausenblas>
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Conrad to add a paragraph in the section 5.2.1 that
further clarify the role of the UA for rendering a media fragment
[recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Silvia to move 5.1.5 into a new section [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Silvia to move the section 5.1.1 to the top [recorded
in [34]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Troncy to apply this change in the section 5.1.3
(jack's note) [recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2010/02/17-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]
[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 Wednesday, 17 February 2010 14:17:18 UTC