W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-wg@w3.org > June 2020

[Minutes] Media WG teleconference - 2020-06-09

From: <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:11:27 +0000
To: public-media-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <em087192de-fa8f-407b-acfd-e1dcc15d480c@tifacette>
Hi all,

The minutes of today's Media Working Group call are available at:
https://www.w3.org/2020/06/09-mediawg-minutes.html

... and copied as raw text below.

One resolution taken on Media Playback Quality to "send an official vote 
to check what the WG wants to do with regards to merging the 
specification" in the HTML specification.

Other topics discussed: a possible virtual F2F at TPAC, issues raised 
within the CTA WAVE project around Media Capabilities, MSE/EME issues 
triage, publication of Picture-in-Picture as Candidate Recommendation, 
and upcoming call in CSS WG on video-* media queries.

Thanks,
Francois.

-----
Media WG Call
09 June 2020

    [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

       [2] 
https://github.com/w3c/media-wg/blob/master/meetings/2020-06-09-Media_Working_Group_Teleconference-agenda.md
       [3] https://www.w3.org/2020/06/09-mediawg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Andreas Tai, Chris Needham, Eric Carlson, Francois
           Daoust, Gary Katsevman, hober, Jer Noble, Joey Parrish,
           Matt Wolenetz, Mounir Lamouri, Nigel Megitt, Peng Liu,
           Simon Thompson, Tess O'Connor

    Regrets
           -

    Chair
           Jer, Mounir

    Scribe
           mounir, tidoust

Contents

     1. [4]Update about TPAC
     2. [5]Debrief in CTA WAVE on Media Capabilities
     3. [6]Triage MSE/EME issues
     4. [7]Media Playback Quality
     5. [8]Picture-in-Picture
     6. [9]Video-* media queries
     7. [10]Summary of resolutions

Meeting minutes

   Update about TPAC

    mounir: We resolved to have a joint discussion with WebCodecs.
    TPAC has been moved to a fully virtual conference.

    tidoust: Group can choose to meet at any time, not necessarily
    tied to TPAC.

    hober: It might be smart to try to time a virtual F2F at least
    2 weeks away from TPAC, if not more. The virtual TPAC will be
    likely focused on meetings that span multiple groups, as the
    usual Wednesday. I think we should aim for a F2F a month out
    from TPAC.

    mounir: This sounds good, thank you.
    … I think we should keep our usual schedule.
    … Also organize a meeting with WebCodecs folks around TPAC.

    cpn: That sounds good. Note that I'm planning to invite
    WebCodecs folks to the Media & Entertainment IG next month or
    so. Everyone here would be most welcome.

   Debrief in CTA WAVE on Media Capabilities

    jernoble: I was invited to the CTA WAVE organization. There is
    overlap in participation between organizations.
    … They are trying to write a polyfill that, given a piece of
    media, will pull out the properties of the media and convert
    them into a request to Media Capabilities.

    jernoble: They [11]identified properties that cannot be queried
    through Media Capabilities.
    … I tried to clarify with them design considerations, including
    fingerprinting issues.
    … The MPEG Coding-Independent code point specification
    describes properties for a bunch of codecs, including
    properties that have not been captured in Media Capabilities.
    … What I expect to come out of that is a bunch of issues
    against the Media Capabilities API.
    … A liaison statement from our group to the CTA WAVE could be
    an option, to cover cases where CTA participants cannot
    directly contribute to W3C.

      [11] https://github.com/cta-wave/Media-Capability-APIs/issues

   Triage MSE/EME issues

    tidoust: there are a bunch of [12]open issues for MSE and a
    bunch of [13]open issues for EME, most are accumulated
    historical issues

      [12] https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues
      [13] https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues

    tidoust: some of them have been flagged when they were in HTLM
    WG but many of these flags are no longer relevant as part of
    this group

    tidoust: we should update these flags so they better reflect
    what the Media WG is planning to work or not

    tidoust: I'm not the right person to do that but happy to help

    tidoust: I would like to make sure it's clear internally and
    externally what we are working on

    wolenetz: A lot of open issues are trivial, some of them are
    relevant. No editors from Microsoft for now?

    mounir: Last time we asked, they said they would have no
    editors for MSE.

    wolenetz: So 2 editors for MSE vNext. Mark Watson and myself.
    We could take the time on the call, but Mark is not around.
    I'll sync up with him.
    … If there are issues that you believe should be addressed for
    vNext, add a comment to them.
    … Right now, "vNext" is the spec we're working on right now. We
    should probably have a "v2" label.
    … 45 of the open issues don't even have a milestone yet.
    … Joey, from the EME side, will do the same thing for EME.

    mounir: One of the ask is to differentiate what is the new
    vNext and what will be postponed to the future.

    wolenetz: sounds good.

   Media Playback Quality

    mounir: We are at the stage where we could go and publish a
    FPWD of the [14]Media Playback Quality specification. Also, we
    had some feedback from folks that this spec should be merged in
    the HTML spec. Is it something that people feel strongly about
    one way or the other?

      [14] https://w3c.github.io/media-playback-quality/

    jernoble: I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other.
    It is such a small spec that it probably belongs to the HTML
    spec.

    jernoble: Unless we take over the whole media section of the
    HTML spec, I think it fits well within the video section in the
    HTML spec.

    mounir: Are you aware of any change compared to what's in the
    spec?

    jernoble: Not aware of any.

    mounir: We also have an open issue about what to do with the
    whole media section, but no update on that so far.
    … What would be the best way to proceed?
    … It is an official deliverable of the WG.
    … Should we resolve to take the spec to HTML LS?

    tidoust: Sounds like a good first step. I'll check internally
    possible other steps.

    wolenetz: I note that MSE references Media Playback Quality.
    … with a non-normative link.

    nigel: We're talking about FPWD for this but it already has
    some deprecated feature in it. How do you plan to deal with it?
    … Having a deprecated feature in a spec that has never been
    published for real seems weird.

    mounir: This used to be part of MSE, and was in the FPWD of
    MSE.
    … The section got pruned to its own spec on the way to Rec.
    … That property is still available in some browsers, so we need
    to keep the property around to explain the situation.

    Resolution: send an official vote to check what the WG wants to
    do with regards to merging the specification

   Picture-in-Picture

    mounir: Implemented by Apple and Google. We have most of what
    we need to move to CR.
    … Most open issues can probably be marked with a vNext flag.
    … Only one to solve is naming issue on pseudo-class.
    … I wanted to check how people felt about moving to CR?

    jernoble: Off the top of my head, I don't know of any feature
    that Apple is willing to see added to the spec before it goes
    to CR.

    mounir: OK, I'll check with François Beaufort. We may need to
    check the test suite.

   Video-* media queries

    cpn: I wanted to mention briefly that the CSS WG has some of
    the video-* media queries on their agenda.
    … video-width and video-height.
    … Please do join the call if you're interested in those.

    jernoble: This is the video-* prefixed viewport width and
    height, right?

    cpn: That's right.
    … Two parts to the media capabilities story. The API talks
    about the decoding capability, and CSS media display rendering
    capabilities.

    jernoble: Tess, do you have the relevant context? Or would you
    want me to show up in the CSS WG?

    tess: Either way. You're welcome to join.

    jernoble: OK, we'll coordinate offline to make sure the Media
    WG gets represented.

    cpn: Nigel and I will be there as well.

    jernoble: This query is really for devices that have different
    plane capabilities for video and graphics. Set-top boxes and
    TVs in practice, right?

    cpn: That's right.

Summary of resolutions

     1. [15]send an official vote to check what the WG wants to do
        with regards to merging the specification
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2020 15:11:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 9 June 2020 15:11:33 UTC