[Minutes] Media WG call - 2020-12-08

Hi all,

The minutes of this week's Media Working Group teleconference are 
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/12/08-mediawg-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text below.

During the call, the group resolved to suggest to merge the Media 
Playback Quality specification to the HTML specification (and thus not 
to publish the specification as First Public Working Draft). This 
concludes the Call for Consensus that had been sent back in September:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-wg/2020Sep/0000.html

As noted during this call, such a move requires agreement from both W3C 
and WHATWG, per the memorandum of understanding that both parties 
signed. I will initiate that process internally.

Thanks,
Francois.

=====
Media WG Teleconference

08 December 2020

    [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

       [2] 
https://github.com/w3c/media-wg/blob/master/meetings/2020-12-08-Media_Working_Group_Teleconference-agenda.md
       [3] https://www.w3.org/2020/12/08-mediawg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Andreas Tai, Chris Cunningham, Chris Needham, Cyril
           Concolato, Francois Beaufort, Francois Daoust, Gary
           Katsevman, Mark Watson, Matt Wolenetz, Mounir Lamouri,
           Peng Liu

    Regrets
           -

    Chair
           Mounir

    Scribe
           cpn, tidoust

Contents

     1. [4]Move Media Playback Quality to FPWD or to the HTML
        specification
     2. [5]Review group milestones
     3. [6]Should PiP video removed from the DOM leave PiP?
     4. [7]Summary of action items
     5. [8]Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes

   Move Media Playback Quality to FPWD or to the HTML specification

    mounir: Some comments from Chris during the call for consensus

    cpn: When we discussed it last time, we talked about drafting
    some criteria to understand when it's a good idea to move the
    spec into HTML and when to publish it as standalone.
    … I'd like to understand better what criteria we're using here.
    … Is it because of the size of the spec?
    … Is it because of the amount of patching of HTML algorithms
    that we do? In which case something like MSE, which patches
    HTML algorithms, would be a good candidate too.

    mounir: If we had infinite time, we'd write something. You're
    right that the size of the spec matters here.
    … Domenic would like everything that patches HTML to be merged
    with HTML. The general feeling in this group last time we
    discussed is slightly different.
    … MSE/EME, not going to merge.
    … Picture-in-Picture could be discussed but, from my
    perspective, it should not move, because it defines specific
    thinks as well on top of a small amount of monkey-patching.
    … What I'm hearing from you is that you would like to see some
    shared set of rules. Does it have to be formal?

    cpn: I'm comfortable with something less formal. What you just
    explained is fine.
    … It could be a resolution in the minutes.
    … I'm personally happy with the way you just explained it.

    Matt_Wolenetz: Also happy with the direction. I would not like
    MSE to move to HTML, as this would complicate editorial work
    significantly.
    … Two options in the call for consensus: FPWD and merge back to
    HTML. What are the differences?

    mounir: If we publish as FPWD, it stays within the group and
    moves to the Rec track. If we move it to HTML, it would no
    longer be part of the group's list of deliverables.

    <Matt_Wolenetz> I was confused - I thought both bullets in the
    CfC began with "I support". But the second begins with "I
    object".

    mounir: Francois, should we run another CfC?

    Francois: We should just record a resolution here, and I'll
    pass the request along internally to W3M so that it gets
    discussed in the next W3C / WHATWG call.

    <mounir> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: merge the Media Playback
    Qualityspecification to the HTML specification.

    <mounir> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: merge the Media Playback Quality
    specification to the HTML specification.

    Francois: Approval from both sides is needed to effectively do
    the transition

    Resolution: suggest to merge the Media Playback Quality
    specification to the HTML specification.

    Francois: We'll probably need an editor to do the work once we
    get the green light

    mounir: ChrisC should be the hero.

   Review group milestones

    [9]Review group milestones

       [9] https://github.com/w3c/media-wg/issues/22

    Francois: The WG has some milestones defined in the charter.
    We'll miss the milestones, but that's usual.
    … Would be good to update those, to show progress, milestones
    for publication

    mounir: With regards to Media Capabilities, it could go to CR.
    I was hoping ChrisC would be here to tell us about it, it went
    through a lot of changes.
    … We may need to split the spec if we go to CR.

    ChrisC: I'm here, actually
    … The major part of the spec that are still in flux is the
    WebRTC additions. There are also ongoing discussions related to
    CMAF.
    … I'm not familiar enough with the process to say whether that
    should block the transition.

    mounir: As far as I know, when we go to CR, we should freeze
    the scope.
    … After CR, the goal is to have tests, implementation report.

    Francois: Process 2020 makes it easier to update CR. You get
    director review to transition to CR and no new feature
    additions. In practice, many specs transitioned back to WD to
    be updated.
    … With P2020, the first transition is as before, but it can
    publish new CR Drafts as needed without Director approval.
    These drafts can add new features or change anything
    … Once the group is happy it can request transition to Rec with
    director's approval

    cpn: Similarly, it may be good to remain at the draft level
    while discussions with CTA WAVE are ongoing, to show we're
    still considering potential updates

    ChrisC: Absolutely.

    Matt_Wolenetz: MSE. Some feature capability / detection
    discussions. In-band support, etc.
    … We have a few features that are at least implemented in one
    browser

    Francois: FPWD triggers call for exclusions, so could be good
    to have some of the features you want in there before
    publishing

    Matt: That could be doable in Q1 2021

    mounir: Moving on to Picture-in-Picture
    … Only a couple of issues left for CR?

    <Matt_Wolenetz> (MSE FPWD Q1 2021 including initial features
    like SourceBuffer.changeType(), but not necessarily the rest of
    ongoing feature work that will be in V2 also.)

    fbeaufort_: Regarding the spec, the only outstanding issues are
    disabled Picture-in-Picture attribute, auto pip attribute, and
    the one I wanted to talk today

    mounir: The auto pip attribute has not been launched by anyone,
    right?

    fbeaufort_: Right

    mounir: It could be dropped from the spec.
    … About disabled?

    fbeaufort_: Safari was pushing back.

    peng: My understanding is that we're not going to implement
    that. The motivation is to give the user the option, but not
    give the web site the control of this.

    mounir: One option would be to make support for the attribute
    optional

    fbeaufort_: That's already the case in the spec.

    peng: Yes, we support that option but don't do anything.

    mounir: OK, let's keep that for later, and move to Media
    Session.
    … Becca is not here. The main issue that we have with Media
    Session, is that we are missing two implementations. That's not
    officially a blocker to go to CR, but it will block publication
    of a REC.

    fbeaufort_: I believe that Media Session shipped in Firefox.
    Maybe not the whole spec.

    mounir: OK, then we need to check what can be shipped, indeed.

    fbeaufort_: Firefox 75 supports media session "basic", and 76
    supports media playback state

    mounir: OK, that's good.

    Action: Mounir to review Media Session API for CR

    mounir: Autoplay Policy Detection, we talked about that in the
    past. Initially, Google and Firefox offered editors. The person
    from Google moved to another team. Essentially, the biggest
    issue is with finding an editor.
    … If someone could volunteer, that would be good!
    … Anyone interested?

    [silence]

    mounir: Finally, MSE and EME. FPWD Q1 2021. We don't have a
    FPWD for either of those for the time being.
    … For EME, what is the update?

    gregwf: Joey is doing most of the editing work. There hasn't
    been too much work from an editing perspective.

    Action: Mounir to check with Joey about FPWD for EME

    mounir: Targeting Q1 2021 would be good so that we have them on
    the Rec track before we re-charter.

    Francois: For things published in /TR, it's possible to
    automate publishing updates there

    chcunningham: If we're talking about rechartering, we should
    talk about adding WebCodecs.

    mounir: Yes, we talked about it when we first chartered.

    Francois: Web Codecs is included in the list of potential
    normative specs, so can be added without rechartering

    Matt_Wolenetz: Do you know about any pros/cons about
    automatically updating TRs?

    Francois: It allows you to trap errors early on, e.g., things
    that block publication rules. Some groups are used to updating
    specs but not necessarily with group consensus, so may want a
    distinction between the draft and what's on TR.
    … I don't see any cons really

    Matt: Any changes needed to our spec repos to do this?

    Francois: No, just need to go to FPWD, which requires a formal
    process step before automating

   Should PiP video removed from the DOM leave PiP?

    fbeaufort_: In Chromium, the video is paused when we move to
    another document, per the HTML spec, but not in Safari.
    … The question is whether it is a bug in Safari, or whether the
    plan is to update the HTML spec.

    peng: We had an internal discussion about that. It would be
    good to update the HTML spec if possible.
    … PiP is a special case, the recommendation makes sense for
    inline video.

    mounir: One challenge is if, as a group, we go and ask to
    update HTML, the obvious question will be: "PiP should be
    merged in HTML", because then the HTML spec would reference
    Picture-in-Picture, which references HTML.
    … It would be good if Safari has strong use cases to keep this.
    … Is there any use case that you're aware of that you're trying
    to solve?

    peng: It's hard to say. We changed the behavior because we
    believe it was a bug. Your point is you don't think it
    justifies the change?

    mounir: It may not be strong enough, unless it really breaks
    some behavior. We need something that would make it a stronger
    argument.

    peng: I need to discuss with Jer and Tess about that.

    mounir: Yes, please and go back to the issue to explain the
    rationale.

    fbeaufort_: Yes, if you can update the GitHub issue, that would
    be great!

    peng: OK, I will follow up.

    mounir: Thanks all, happy end of 2020 to everyone, and see you
    all in 2021!

Summary of action items

     1. [10]Mounir to review Media Session API for CR
     2. [11]Mounir to check with Joey about FPWD for EME

Summary of resolutions

     1. [12]suggest to merge the Media Playback Quality
        specification to the HTML specification.

Received on Thursday, 10 December 2020 17:21:03 UTC