Re: minutes of 2011-06-15 teleconference

Oh! I missed the announcement of Chris with the nightlies. Chris: are
they special nightlies to get from a special location or the normal
version 7 ones? Am I right in assuming that only the time dimension
with npt time works? and only in the address bar or also in the video
element?

Cheers,
Silvia.

2011/6/15 Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>:
> Dear all,
>
> The minutes of today's phone telecon are available for review at
> http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html (and in text format
> below).
>
> In a nutshell:
>  - We resolve to switch back to name the fourth dimension for addressing
> media fragment #id= (instead of #chapter=)
>  - We still aim at transitioning to CR next telecon. Davy has some edits to
> perform this week and I will prepare the diff documents and disposition of
> comments
>  - Yves is in charge to start a new thread regarding the status of the
> section 5.2 and whether this part (considered as exploratory) should be put
> in a separate W3C Note or be kept in the main specification that will go
> Recommendation.
>
>  Raphaël
>
> -----------
>   [1]W3C
>      [1] http://www.w3.org/
>             Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
> 15 Jun 2011
>   [2]Agenda
>      [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2011Jun/0010.html
>   See also: [3]IRC log
>      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-irc
> Attendees
>   Present
>          Yves, Jack, Davy, Chris, Silvia, Raphael, Erik, Philip, (irc)
>   Regrets
>          Thomas
>   Chair
>          Raphael, Erik
>   Scribe
>          raphael
> Contents
>     * [4]Topics
>         1. [5]1. ADMIN
>         2. [6]2. SPEC MAINTENANCE
>         3. [7]3. Name of the 4th dimension
>         4. [8]4. CR transitioning
>         5. [9]5. AOB
>     * [10]Summary of Action Items
>     _________________________________________________________
>
>   <trackbot> Date: 15 June 2011
>
>   <doublec> I get 'dispatch code is not valid'
>
>   <doublec> when trying to enter the conference code
>
>   <doublec> yes
>
>   <silvia> hmm… I am still at work and about to go home… am I needed
>   in the meeting?
>
>   Chris announcing some nightlies to see part of media fragments in
>   ACTION:-)
>
> 1. ADMIN
>
>   PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the last week telecon:
>
>   [11]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-mediafrag-minutes.html
>
>     [11] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-mediafrag-minutes.html
>
>   <davy> +1
>
>   <erik> +1
>
>   +1
>
>   <jackjansen> +1
>
>   minutes accepted
>
>   <doublec> +1
>
> 2. SPEC MAINTENANCE
>
>   ACTION-218?
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-218 -- Jack Jansen to carrefully review the
>   changes made by Davy that will most likely be all over the palce --
>   due 2011-04-20 -- OPEN
>
>   <trackbot>
>   [12]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/218
>
>     [12] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/218
>
>   Jack: I'd like that people go through this list and address these
>   comments
>   ... going through my comments, the first one is actually about
>   section 6.1.1
>   ... it is indeed a typo, e should be > 0
>   ... should we allow empty images or empty video files ?
>
>   Davy: no, no empty images, so we are right to write w>0 and h>0
>   ... for consistency, we do the same for temporal, to e>0 (strictly
>   greater)
>
>   Jack: harmonize the text, between play from x to y OR play from x
>   until y ... and also specifiy if the last frame should or should not
>   be played
>   ... this is an open interval so the last frame shouldn't be played
>
>   Raphael: we should even have a test case that check this
>
>   Jack: this is important if we start combining media fragments
>   ... we use width as opposed to right so it is clear which pixels are
>   actually displayed
>   ... this is clear, we can ignore this point
>   ... #t=a, is illegal
>
>   Davy: yes per the ABNF and per the test case
>
>   Raphael: we should put it in the section 6.2.2 as a typical example
>   of error case
>
>   <davy>
>   [13]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases#TC001
>   8-UA
>
>     [13]
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases#TC0018-UA
>
>   Jack: problem with SMPTE time code adressing: are we always
>   guaranteed to have frame accuracy
>
>   <foolip> I don't think the spec is anywhere near CR, it has no
>   browser implementations yet. (I also don't know why the spec status
>   is important.)
>
>   <foolip> I have no opinion on the name, id is fine by me.
>
>   Philip, CR does not mean implementations ... PR mean implementations
>
>   <Yves> foolip, CR is a call for implementations, so it's normal not
>   to have implementation at that stage (and the end result might be
>   going back to LC again)
>
>   <foolip> OK, no opinion on spec status
>
>   <Yves> in any case, we know that most implementers are aware of the
>   status of the edcopy :)
>
>   Jack: perhaps we could let it explicitly as "implementation to be
>   defined"
>   ... if you do spmte addressing on smpte encoded media has a well
>   defined behavior
>   ... but if you do smpte addressing on non smpte-encoded media, then
>   it is explicly undefined and we wait for implementation experience
>
>   <doublec> We have no plans to implement smpte timecods
>
>   Raphael: I think foolip does not plan to implement smpte addressing,
>   correct foolip ?
>
>   <foolip> raphael, correct
>
>   Jack: that is fine, this not for browsers, this is more for editing
>   programs
>
>   Silvia: gstreamer has a plan to implement media fragments with smpte
>   time codes addressing for live streaming!
>
>   <silvia> flumotion
>
>   Davy: WebTV IG has also interest in frame accuracy
>
>   <Yves> but does editing programs needs identifying such timepoints
>   using URIs ?
>
>   <silvia> Thomas van der Stichele from Fluendo
>
>   Davy: we should keep an eye on this group
>
>   Raphael: I will check if Thomas is subscribed to this mailing list
>
>   <Yves> ok, thanks Jack, the annotations is indeed a use case
>
>   Jack: the annotation use case is important, not only for playback,
>   in an editing program that would use a URI to identify a frame
>
>   Davy: no we don't have test cases yet for a<s and b<s and various
>   combinations (because smpte timecodes don't have to be zero-based)
>   ... we removed them for npt since these resources cannot start with
>   0, but we should add them back for smpte
>
>   Jack: undefined for non contiguous smpte timecodes
>   ... we need much more implementation experience
>
>   Raphael: I'm in favor of saying explicitly it is *undefined*
>
>   +1 from Jack and Davy
>
>   <silvia> +1
>
>   Raphael: going through the problem of track names discovery
>   ... and errors on the track dimension
>
>   Jack: what's happen with #track=foo&t=10,40 ?
>   ... and track foo starts at t=25
>   ... an implementation will play this track from 25 to 40 ?
>   ... or play all the tracks from 10 to 25 and start to play from 25
>   to 40 the track foo ?
>
>   Silvia: no, you just select the track, and return the sub part you
>   have
>   ... I wouldn't write anything about this, this is a general problem
>   ... this is a corner case
>   ... again an implementation quality issue
>
>   Jack: again, then I would be in favor of saying explicitly undefined
>   ... if a track does not exist for the whole duration of the media,
>   then what is happened is undefined
>   ... a forthcoming WG could fix it
>   ... 6.3.5: we should explicitly state what happens if you apply a
>   chapter MF to a media format that doesn't support chaptering?
>
>   Davy: we have a test case for that
>
>   <Yves> yes, same defaulting behaviour as 'not found'
>
>   Davy: same behavior that the media format supporting chapters but
>   the chapter is not found
>
>   close ACTION-217
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-217 Edit the specification for precising what is
>   the user experience when there is an invalid time range closed
>
>   ACTIO: davy to edit the specification and in particular section 6 to
>   reflect this entire discussion
>
>   <scribe> ACTION: davy to edit the specification and in particular
>   section 6 to reflect this entire discussion [recorded in
>   [14]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
>
>   <trackbot> Created ACTION-225 - Edit the specification and in
>   particular section 6 to reflect this entire discussion [on Davy Van
>   Deursen - due 2011-06-22].
>
>   ACTION-221?
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-221 -- Davy Van Deursen to fix the #t=10, in
>   Section 4.2.1 which is invalid -- due 2011-06-15 -- OPEN
>
>   <trackbot>
>   [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/221
>
>     [15] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/221
>
>   close ACTION-221
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-221 Fix the #t=10, in Section 4.2.1 which is
>   invalid closed
>
>   ACTION-222?
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-222 -- Davy Van Deursen to adapt Section 5.2.3 so
>   that the server can also send back the mapping in terms of byte
>   ranges -- due 2011-06-15 -- OPEN
>
>   <trackbot>
>   [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/222
>
>     [16] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/222
>
>   close ACTION-222
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-222 Adapt Section 5.2.3 so that the server can
>   also send back the mapping in terms of byte ranges closed
>
> 3. Name of the 4th dimension
>
>   <jackjansen> I fully agree with Philip
>
>   <jackjansen> I disagree with "cue", the other ones are fine. "Cue"
>   is a point, not an interval;
>
>   Raphael: chapter might not be a good dimension name for possible
>   confusion with the chapter track
>
>   <jackjansen> lol
>
>   Silvia: segment?
>
>   Raphael: id
>
>   <jackjansen> range? area? part?
>
>   <doublec> bookmark?
>
>   <jackjansen> -bookmark: it's a point
>
>   <doublec> what do the users suggest as an alternative?
>
>   Silvia: I'm worried about the users, not the programmer
>
>   Jack: initally we talked about id but said it replaced all
>   dimensions
>   ... now we restrict it to only time ranges
>   ... and renamed it chapter
>
>   <Yves> shortcut?
>
>   Jack: so if this is just a temporal range, chapter is good
>
>   Silvia: chapter in the context of HTML5 is made for navigational
>   purpose
>
>   Jack: I'm in +-0
>
>   Raphael: I like "id" because it is general and can extended in
>   version 2
>
>   <davy> +1
>
>   Erik: id I prefer
>
>   <foolip> perhaps our problem is that the best solution would be
>   #nameofthingtoseekto, just like for HTML, but that unfortunately
>   conflicts with something else we've made up :)
>
>   <silvia> #nameofthingtorestrictto
>
>   Yves: id also conflicts with HTML
>
>   <foolip> silvia, so you no longer think users should be able to seek
>   outside of the given fragment? ;)
>
>   Jack: I disagree, id refers to a continuous section of a structured
>   document
>   ... and this is what we mean
>
>   Yves: id means point
>
>   <doublec> fragment?
>
>   Jack: no, a node that points to a subsection
>
>   <doublec> :)
>
>   Raphael: propose to switch back to ID
>
>   <doublec> I just noticed everyone was calling it a fragment
>
>   <jackjansen> +0
>
>   <silvia> +.5
>
>   <doublec> +1 to id
>
>   +1 for ID
>
>   <davy> +1 for id
>
>   <erik> +1 to id
>
>   <Yves> ~0 for id
>
>   <jackjansen> ~0? you mean 0xffffffff?
>
>   <Yves> yep!
>
>   <jackjansen> That's -1 to me....
>
>   <Yves> now use the right type, signed or unsigned...
>
>   <scribe> ACTION: davy to edit the spec again to switch back to "ID"
>   for the 4th dimension [recorded in
>   [17]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]
>
>   <trackbot> Created ACTION-226 - Edit the spec again to switch back
>   to "ID" for the 4th dimension [on Davy Van Deursen - due
>   2011-06-22].
>
>   ACTION-224?
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-224 -- Raphaël Troncy to send a reply to the 4
>   commenters -- due 2011-06-15 -- OPEN
>
>   <trackbot>
>   [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/224
>
>     [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/224
>
> 4. CR transitioning
>
>   Yves: diff versions need to be prepared
>   ... just run htmldiff between the two LC and the CR version
>
>   <Yves> see
>   [19]http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01
>   -transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&
>   docstatus=cr-tr
>
>     [19]
> http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=cr-tr
>
>   Yves: the disposition of comments ?
>   ... create an HTML page for this
>   ... the comments between 1st LC, 2nd LC and CR
>   ... I'm wondering if the whole section 5.2 should not be put aside
>   in a different document with a note status ?
>
>   Jack: do we want a note or an extension to be a spec later on
>
>   Yves: a note would be better, it could be picked up by WG later on
>   ... there are multiple ways of doing the same thing and I'm not sure
>   it should be in the spec
>
>   Jack: it is a painful decision to make because we have devoted a lot
>   of time in it
>   ... but I think I agree with you
>
>   Silvia: I don't think this is fine. I believe implementers will need
>   this part and consistently used
>
>   <silvia> it's about getting interoperable implementations
>
>   Jack: look at the audience of this document: end users, web
>   designers, people doing implementations
>
>   Silvia: no, I disagree, we are targetting the URI spec readers
>
>   <Yves> rfc3986 is different from rfc2616
>
>   Raphael: I agree with Silvia, and I don't think we should throw away
>   this part
>
>   Jack: this is clear that this part is nice for browser vendors, but
>   it is not interesting for other readers
>
>   Raphael: I don't think that our spec is that *long* that we should
>   bother with part targetted at a different audience
>
>   <Yves> I will take that to email
>
>   <silvia> a specification is there to create interoperable
>   implementations
>
>   <silvia> it's not a communication tool for users - they can get
>   their information from other websites that have created readable
>   subparts from the specification
>
>   <erik> +1 to Raphael & Silvia ... if some are not interested in some
>   parts, you just don't read it ... browser vendors are main players
>   that will make this spec work (I think)
>
>   Rapahel: I will prepare the diff files and the disposition of
>   comments
>
>   Yves: I will follow up this discussion by email + indicating the
>   status of HTTP Bis and request for implementations from Marc
>   Nottingham
>
> 5. AOB
>
>   none
>
>   meeting adjourned
>
>   <scribe> ACTION: double to announce a link to a nightly implementing
>   part of the media fragment spec [recorded in
>   [20]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]
>
>   <trackbot> Created ACTION-227 - Announce a link to a nightly
>   implementing part of the media fragment spec [on Chris Double - due
>   2011-06-22].
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>   [NEW] ACTION: davy to edit the spec again to switch back to "ID" for
>   the 4th dimension [recorded in
>   [21]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]
>   [NEW] ACTION: davy to edit the specification and in particular
>   section 6 to reflect this entire discussion [recorded in
>   [22]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
>   [NEW] ACTION: double to announce a link to a nightly implementing
>   part of the media fragment spec [recorded in
>   [23]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]
>
>   [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, 15 June 2011 13:58:36 UTC