Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 12 May, Telecon 0900 UTC

To prepare for my action discussion, here is all the information together:

The test cases for temporal dimension have been put together at
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TemporalDimension

The open questions are:
1. #t=a,a and a >= 0 (#2)
Is an empty fragment according to our [a,a[ definition of fragment.
Should we recommend UAs to not even send such fragments to server?
Also: should we recommend UAs to use this to set playback position?

2. #t=a,b and a > b (#3,9,10,13,15)
Is an example of a non-existent fragment.
Currently, Web browsers that encounter non-existing fragments ignore
the fragments and retrieve the complete resource.
If media fragment supportive browsers implement this with the range
request and a 416 range error, then nothing is retrieved.
This will lead to vastly different behaviour between legacy browsers
and supporting browsers.
Should we just accept this situation or is there something we can do better?

3. #t=banana (#25-33)
Is an example of an illegal string.
Right now we have a 200 OK on this, which is conformant with legacy
browsers, but not with non-existent fragment.
We should probably react in the same way.

Cheers,
Silvia.


2010/5/12 Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>:
> Dear Media Fragmenters,
>
> [Apologies for this late notice]
>
> Please, find below the agenda for this week telecon
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=12&month=05&year=2010&hour=09&min=00&sec=0&p1=0
> Actions opened:
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/open
>
> Note that this week agenda is pretty much the same than the ones I'm sending
> since several weeks, so it's time to move on and we are expecting no
> regrets.
>
> I tried to get in touch with Yves without success as he is completely
> unavailable. Therefore, we will re-assign some actions tomorrow, in
> particular A-123 & A-160 from Yves. We will discuss A-161 that Silvia has
> done. Finally, we will discuss a policy regarding the editorship of the
> spec.
> Best regards.
>
>  Erik & Raphaël
>
> ------------
>
> AGENDA Teleconference
> W3C Media Fragments Working Group telephone conference 2010-05-12
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Wednesday, 12 May *09:00-10:00 UTC*
> Local time:
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=12&month=05&year=2010&hour=09&min=00&sec=0&p1=0
>
> 12 May 2010, 0900 UTC
>              0200 (West US)
>              1000 (Galway)
>              1100 (Amsterdam, Sophia-Antipolis, Pretoria)
>              1800 (Tokyo)
>              1900 (Sydney)
> Bridge US: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)
> Bridge FR: +33.4.89.06.34.99
> Bridge UK: +44.117.370.6152
> Conference code : 3724# (spells "FRAG")
> Duration : 60 minutes
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> IRC channel          : #mediafrag on irc.w3.org:6665
> W3C IRC Web Client   : http://irc.w3.org/ and http://www.w3.org/Project/IRC
> Zakim information    : http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim
> Zakim bridge monitor : http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/Zakim.html
> Zakim IRC bot        : http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Chair: Erik, Raphael
> ScribeList: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/ScribeList
> Scribe: Silvia (On Deck: Conrad, Michael)
> Regrets: none
>
> Please note that Media Fragments WG telecons are for attendance by
> members and invited experts only.
>
> 1. ADMIN:
> * Roll call
> * PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 14 April 2010 telecon:
> http://www.w3.org/2010/04/14-mediafrag-minutes.html
> * PROPOSED to accept the short minutes of the 28 April 2010 telecon:
> http://www.w3.org/2010/04/28-mediafrag-minutes.html
> * PROPOSED to accept the short minutes of the 05 May 2010 telecon:
> http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-mediafrag-minutes.html
> * ACTION-119: Yves to request admins to set up a cvs notifications mailing
> list and notifications
> * ACTION-92: Erik and Raphael to coordinate the writing of papers
> ** Postpone (new deadline is May 8th 2010)
> * Next WG F2F: http://www.doodle.com/rt7fsz583hgzrcki
> ** Proposal: F2F meeting organized on 15-16 June in EURECOM/Sophia Antipolis
> by Yves and I
>
> 2. USE CASES & REQUIREMENTS
>
> * ACTION-156: Conrad to add a "bandwidth conservation use case"
>
> 3. SPECIFICATION:
>
> Debate: editorship policy of the specification
>
> 3.1 Media Fragment URI syntax: (Yves)
>
> * ACTION-152: Yves to change the formal syntax to reflect that we don't need
> a subdelim for selecting multiple tracks but we allow multiple track= in the
> URI
>
> 3.2 Protocol for URI fragment Resolution in HTTP:
> * ACTION-123: Yves to come up with ABNF for header syntax
> * ACTION-154: Yves to add a section 5.2.4 describing his new optimization
> * ACTION-160: Yves to send an email reporting the issue for track names
> * ACTION-137: Jack to check that 5.1 is implementable using the protocol
>
> 3.3 Rendering of Media Fragments URI in UA:
> * ISSUE-5 [Jack]: Handling spatial cropping requires information at
> client-side
>
> 3.4 Discovery of 'Track' and 'Named' fragments:
> * ISSUE-4 [Silvia]: Should we pre-define some track names?
> * Davy's strawman implementation using ROE:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Nov/0014.html
> * Silvia's blog post:
> http://blog.gingertech.net/2009/11/25/manifests-exposing-structure-of-a-composite-media-resource/
> * Jack's proposal to write up that we should distinguish the mechanism (ROE,
> MPEG-21) vs the semantics
>
> 4. TEST CASES: (Michael)
> * Corrib test tool: http://ld2sd.deri.org/corrib/
> * ACTION-161: Silvia to integrate the test cases into the spec
> * ACTION-146: Jack to identify and add in corrib any missing test cases for
> temporal fragments
> * ACTION-147: Michael to add all MF WG members to corrib
> * ACTION-148: Michael to add a copy TC functionality in corrib
> * ACTION-149: Michael to come up with a fix for overview vs. edit single TC
> in corrib
> * Suggestion of nasty test cases by Philip:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Dec/0015.html
>
> 5. ISSUES
>
> 5.1 Active:
>
> 5.2 Non-Active:
> * ISSUE-6 [Jack]: Temporal clips that require transcoding
> * ISSUE-7 [Michael]: User Agent Media Fragment Resolution and Processing
> * ISSUE-9 [Michael]: Should we have the media type inside the Test Cases?
> * ISSUE-12 [Raphael]: What's the relationship between Images (CSS) Sprites
> and the spatial dimension of the Media Fragments URI scheme?
> * ISSUE-13 [Raphael]: Write a IETF draft for proposing how to register the
> fragment scheme for all media types
> * ISSUE-14 [Davy]: How to deal with embedded time stamps
> * ISSUE-16 [Jack]: Combining axis is probably not going to be done by LC,
> but we should write somewhere that this is doable
>
> 6. IMPLEMENTATION:
> * ACTION-34: Jack to look at python-url library to see whether he could
> implement the logic on client side
> * ACTION-35: Raphael to look at curl and/or wget to see whether the logic
> could be implemented on client side
> * ACTION-70: Jack to commit in CVS (code directory) his python code doing
> the parsing on client side of the media fragment
> * Someone to investigate whether he could have an implementation in
> Javascript that does the client-side media fragments parsing?
>
> 7. AOB
>
> --
> 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, 11 May 2010 23:43:59 UTC