- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 11:53:16 +0200
- To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Dear all,
The minutes of today's phone telecon are available for review at
http://www.w3.org/2011/09/07-mediafrag-minutes.html (and in text format
below).
The summary:
* CR transition processed today (hopefully)
* Some remaining TC to review (Action from Jack)
* A showcase portal to plan (Thomas, Raphael)
* Preparing the Test Cases report with the current implementations
Raphaël
--------------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
07 Sep 2011
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/09/07-mediafrag-irc
Attendees
Present
Raphael, Yves, Silvia, Thomas
Regrets
Erik, Davy
Chair
Raphael
Scribe
raphael
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]1. ADMIN
2. [5]2. SPEC
3. [6]3. TEST CASES AND IMPLEMENTATIONS
4. [7]4. HTML5 Bugs
5. [8]5. AOB
* [9]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 07 September 2011
<scribe> Scribe: raphael
oups: -)
1. ADMIN
Yves will book zakim again until the end of the year
Yves: I would like that the features at risk is explicit in the
status section of the document
... in particular the entire section on which the group votes for
keeping it or not
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the last telecon:
[10]http://www.w3.org/2011/07/27-mediafrag-minutes.html
[10] http://www.w3.org/2011/07/27-mediafrag-minutes.html
<tomayac> +1
+1
<silvia> +1
<Yves> +1
minutes accepted
2. SPEC
ACTION-234?
<trackbot> ACTION-234 -- Thomas Steiner to review the "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures" IETF draft -- due
2011-08-25 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[11]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/234
[11] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/234
Review:
[12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2011Au
g/0006.html
[12]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2011Aug/0006.html
Raphael: Thomas, could you send this review to IETF on behalf of the
group
<tomayac> sure, will do
close ACTION-234
<trackbot> ACTION-234 Review the "Media Type Specifications and
Registration Procedures" IETF draft closed
ACTION-231?
<trackbot> ACTION-231 -- Yves Lafon to check if his grammar is in
synch with the latest version of the spec -- due 2011-07-13 -- OPEN
<trackbot>
[13]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/231
[13] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/231
Yves: will do it in 2 weeks
3. TEST CASES AND IMPLEMENTATIONS
Raphael: we have the nightlies of Firefox
... we have a version of Opera but who has tested it?
... @foolip, how can we download a nightly to test your
implementation?
<silvia> I didn't see it … sorry
close ACTION-227
<trackbot> ACTION-227 Announce a link to a nightly implementing part
of the media fragment spec closed
<foolip> There is no nightly, only the build I made at OVC last year
ACTION-228?
<trackbot> ACTION-228 -- Thomas Steiner to develop the validator
page using his js library for media fragments -- due 2011-07-20 --
OPEN
<trackbot>
[14]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/228
[14] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/228
<silvia> @foolip: is it in the main trunk and will it become part of
a release or are there no plans?
<foolip> it's on a branch, there are no immediate plans to do
anything with it
@foolip do you think you can made another build and share it with
the group?
Thomas: I have filled a entry for Chromium to get Media Frag
implemented
<tomayac>
[15]http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=94368
[15] http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=94368
Thomas: I will look internally who is the best person to lobby
<foolip> raphael, that would be a fair amount of work (making a
proper desktop build), would it be valuable?
<tomayac> user script à la greasemonkey
Thomas: I plan to turn my js library in a GreaseMonkey script that
would make some browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Safari?) natively
supporting media fragment
@foolip we need to generate test report of existing implementations,
so we will need to have some frozen versions at some point
scribe: I understand that generating builds for multiple OS is a
great amount of work
... how can we help?
... what is the plan of Opera to include it in the main trunk at
some point?
<foolip> ok, for those purposes I think we can consider Opera's
implementation to be non-existent for the time being
<foolip> and update it when there is an implementation released on
the normal path
<foolip> if we don't go through proper integration, I can't get
proper testing, so the results would reflect badly on us, most
likely
ok foolip, and you have a schedule plan for proper integration?
Thomas: I will think more about the GreaseMonkey script
4. HTML5 Bugs
See: [16]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10723
[16] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10723
<foolip> raphael, I'll be honest and say that MF is pretty far down
the priority list for <video>, after things like <track>, WebRTC,
adaptive streaming, multitrack and Audio API
Raphael: I will re-open this bug
<foolip> We won't be taking the lead here, like I had initially
hoped.
Raphael: based on Chris nightly implementation
5. AOB
Raphael: the main point of discussion now should be complete the
test cases review and mainly generate test cases report
... so that we can see what is well implemented
Silvia: we need now nice web page and applications that use media
fragments
... liaise with video sharing platform?
Thomas: I have an application accepted at the DeRiVE workshop
... that detects events in videos
... Raphael and me can brainstorm on a web site that showcase media
fragment implementations
... including good and cool web sites
... People seem to focus on the temporal aspect only of the spec
... should we be worried?
... should we ultimately split the spec into temporal aspects vs
other aspectS?
Yves: I think you have a good point
... CSS is very keen to use Media Fragments for slicing
... we should focus on this part as well
... perhaps discuss with David Baron for Mozilla, ask Philip for
Opera ... or ask Bert from W3C
... if we have multiple partial implementations that all together
cover the whole spec, this is fine if the group decides so
... for an audio client, this makes no sense to implement the
spatial visual part
Silvia: do we expect a browser to implement the whole spec or only
some features?
... I think we should look for features
Raphael: +1!
<tomayac> +1, silvia
Silvia: we need e.g. 2 different implementations for the temporal
features
Raphael: other things you would like to discuss
Silvia: I will publicize Media Fragments at OVC
Summary of Action Items
[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, 7 September 2011 09:54:44 UTC