- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:40:27 +0100
- To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Dear all,
The minutes of today's telecon are available for review at
http://www.w3.org/2010/11/24-mediafrag-minutes.html (and in text format
below).
Best regards,
Raphaël
----------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
24 Nov 2010
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Nov/0033.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/24-mediafrag-irc
Attendees
Present
Yves, Raphael, Thomas, Silvia, Philip_(irc)
Regrets
davy, eric
Chair
Raphael
Scribe
Raphael
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]1. Admin
2. [6]Discuss HTML5 bug
3. [7]3. Media Fragment Specification
4. [8]4. Use Cases and Requirements
5. [9]5. AOB
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 24 November 2010
<scribe> Scribe: Raphael
<scribe> scribenick: raphael
1. Admin
<tomayac> +1
Propose to accept the minutes of last telecon:
[11]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-mediafrag-minutes.html
[11] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-mediafrag-minutes.html
+1
<Yves> +1
minutes accepted
<silvia> +1
ACTION-183?
<trackbot> ACTION-183 -- Raphaël Troncy to send reminders to all
relevant groups -- due 2010-09-15 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[12]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/183
[12] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/183
close ACTION-183
<trackbot> ACTION-183 Send reminders to all relevant groups closed
Raphael: I did send an email to whatwg and html5
... but the mail to the html5 mailing list didn't get through
... subscription problem
Silvia, could you please forward my email to the HTML5 mailing list?
<silvia> oh, did it not go through?
<silvia> will do
scribe: I have also contacted Chris Double, Frank Olivier and Eric
Carlson to get more reviews
... and the CSS working group regarding the bug
[13]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10723
[13] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10723
No, silvia, my mail went through the whatwg mailing list but NOT the
html5 one
<silvia> ok
Discuss HTML5 bug
See: [14]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10723
[14] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10723
Question is what we should do since this bug has been closed by Ian
<foolip> If he's wrong, we should explain why.
<silvia> I think we need to propose an actual spec change
<foolip> That will also do fine
<silvia> then there is something to discuss
Yves: for images, if the cropping is the default rendering behavior,
it should be specified in our spec
... for video and audio, since there is more controls from the HTML5
spec, if the default behavior is highlighting, then it could be
specified in HTML5
<Yves> (for time dimension)
<silvia> text about controls:
[15]http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/vide
o.html#attr-media-controls
[15]
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#attr-media-controls
Yves: silvia, is there in html5, something that says how external
controls are displayed for video?
<Yves> media-controls should know how to interact with a fragment
Silvia: there is only recommendations
<silvia> Yes, I agree - there should be recommendations on what to
display for a <video> or <audio> element that has a media fragment
URI - in particular since we may recommend a UI change
<silvia> but we need to formulate that recommendation
I agree Silvia
<Yves> for everything linked only to the content, the content has to
define the behaviour, for external artefacts, like video controls,
as they are part (even informally) of html5, somehting need to be in
the spec
<Yves> +1 to Silvia
<silvia> and we need to do this differently for temporal to spatial
fragments
Problem is also process: bug is closed. Should we escalate it? Or
open a new one for temporal dimension since we agree on the space
dimension
<tomayac> isnt part of ian's point that there are besides cropping
no concrete use cases? only skimmed very rapidly, so might've
misread
<silvia> I'm not 100% sure about process (maybe Philip knows
better), but I think we may be able to reopen the bug with new
information
<tomayac> aryeh's
<Yves> silvia, I think so too, we need clarification of the intent,
and proposed text, as currently, Ian is perfectly right in closing
this bug
<silvia> I agree
<silvia> we haven't provided any answers to the questions raised in
the bug
Yes, Thomas is discussing the non-cropping use case for spatial
region
<silvia> the bug was not registered with a particular focus on
spatial fragments - it was generic for media fragment uris
<silvia> we need to have changes at least on how the control display
should change and also how the scroll-to-fragid should be done
<silvia>
[16]http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#scroll-to-fragid
[16] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#scroll-to-fragid
<scribe> ACTION: silvia to draft the paragraph that the group will
propose to HTML5 regarding how the control of media fragment URI
should be done [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/24-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-202 - Draft the paragraph that the group
will propose to HTML5 regarding how the control of media fragment
URI should be done [on Silvia Pfeiffer - due 2010-12-01].
3. Media Fragment Specification
close ACTION-195
<trackbot> ACTION-195 Add a paragraph in the section 7.1 to specify
that video, audio, img or any href is all treated similarly (range
request issued when facing a media fragment) closed
Raphael: contentious issue, in the case of a media fragment URI in a
very particular context, i.e. in the audio or video element, AND
that media fragment URI looks like a temporal fragment
... then browser SHOULD?/COULD? issue a range request in a first
place
<Yves> MAY
Raphael: i.e. what we called the optimistic processing of media
fragments
... if the server ack the fact the resource is a video, then it uses
the recipe "Server mapped byte ranges" (section 5.1.2)
... if the server realized that the resource is not a video, then it
ignores the Range header
<tomayac> in this case MAY sounds too defensive
<Yves> MAY sounds defensive, but it's the case for all optimisations
that are approaching crossing the layers ;)
Raphael: anytime a URI looks like a #t= but only if this is the
value of the href attibute of <video>/<audio> or the src attribute
of the <source> element
Silvia: well, Apple implements the <video> element so that the value
could also be a m3u playlist, not a media element
<silvia> m3u8
<Yves> ok, in that case, time range won't apply and you will get the
whole thing
<Yves> hence the "optimistic optimization" (and the MAY)
Raphael: I'm curious what will happen if the video element point to
a m3u8 resource in a browser that is not Safari
<silvia>
[18]http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#technotes/tn2010/tn2224.
html <- example
[18]
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#technotes/tn2010/tn2224.html
foolip, do you have an opinion on this discussion?
ACTION-191?
<trackbot> ACTION-191 -- Yves Lafon to update the production rules
of the time dimension with the npt format for making the hours
optional -- due 2010-11-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[19]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/191
[19] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/191
ACTION-173?
<trackbot> ACTION-173 -- Yves Lafon to produce the code that will
check the grammar of both the URI syntax and the Headers syntax --
due 2010-06-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[20]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/173
[20] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/173
4. Use Cases and Requirements
<silvia> have you collected all the issues that could be added to
the use cases?
Raphael: we have Ericson people using media fragment URI for video
chat, Thomas using the spec in SemWebVid, HTTP streaming that might
use it too
... I wonder if at some point we should not update the UC note with
these initiatives
... silvia, so far I'm only keeping track of the initiatives, and I
think we should report them as well as the issues in the document
later on
Thomas: currently I'm using simple media fragment to point to
temporal sequences of video
... + content negotiation to get either the RDF annotation of the
sequence (e.g. closed caption) or the video bits
... the overall vision is that search results could include media
fragments URI pointing to sequences that are relevant for a video
search
... use case of finding people and highlighting faces with media
fragments URI, so something more highlighting than cropping
Silvia: I think you should bring this to the whatwg mailing list
Thomas: concerned about the too large traffic of this list
<tomayac> silvia, maybe you could ping me a link to the thread, and
i could jump in
Silvia: I understand, then make sure to include this in our planned
reply to the html5 group
... are you aware of popcorn.js that does similar things that what
you intend to do
Thomas: there is also a couple of BBC projects that do similar
things, twitter streams displayed in parallel of programs
... also people in DERI working on this
... annotating conference media streams
Raphael: so you agree with the principle of reporting all these
experiments in our UC note at some point?
5. AOB
none
<silvia> tomayac, you might want to read this thread:
[21]http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-August/
027581.html
[21]
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-August/027581.html
<tomayac> thanks, silvia
<tomayac> can i ask an, erm, stupid question: if you say html5, do
you say whatwg, or w3c?
<foolip> tomayac, same same, whatever comes up first in your
favorite search engine :)
<tomayac> wikipedia ;-)
great answer thomas
scribe: the second one should be W3C
:-)
<foolip> oh, in the context of <audio>, <video>, I think it's
possible to send a range request without knowing the MIME type, but
not really sane from a purity point of view. In any case I don't see
it happening because the only benefit is one less round-trip, and
only works with specialized servers
<foolip> I don't think the benefit is tangible enough that browsers
or servers would bother implementing it.
<Yves> it will depend on big content provider interested or not in
that (to reduce the load)
<foolip> right, should any browser or provider show any kind of
interest in it I could of course reconsider
you represent ONE browser, and I'm talking to provider, such as
Dailymotion, who could be interested ... so it might be worth
considering at some point
Summary of Action Items
[DONE] ACTION: silvia to draft the paragraph that the group will
propose to HTML5 regarding how the control of media fragment URI
should be [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/24-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 Wednesday, 24 November 2010 11:43:42 UTC