- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:38:24 +0900
- To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Hi all, # Sorry I didn't send this announcement earlier... > <kaz> [ kaz will send out an announcement about the f2f and ask you > all for agenda idea, etc. ] As I mentioned during the previous MPTF call (and as already announced on the Web and TV IG page [1] and wiki [2]), there will be the first f2f meeting of the Web and TV IG on September 19-20 right after the third Web and TV Workshop in Hollywood [3]. The agenda includes: - Web and TV IG interim report review - Home Networking Task Force discussion - Media Pipeline Task Force discussion - Other topics raised in the IG - Feedback from the third W3C Web and TV Workshop - Web and TV eco-system and future plans for the IG activities The details on the f2f meeting will be available on the IG Wiki at: http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/F2F_Hollywood_2011 Now the IG co-Chairs and the TF moderators are working hard to make the interim report ready for the discussion during the f2f meeting. The plan is providing a draft version to you all for review by Sep. 15. Note: - Participation in the f2f meeting is restricted to W3C Members. - However, comments to the IG report and proposals for f2f agenda are very welcome from all the IG participants even if you're not a W3C Member. [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/ [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/ [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/09/webtv/ Thanks, Kazuyuki On 08/12/2011 06:00 PM, Francois Daoust wrote: > Hi all, > > The minutes of yesterday's call are available at: > http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-webtv-minutes.html > > ... and copied as raw text below. > > Thanks, > Francois. > > > ----- > 11 Aug 2011 > > [2]Agenda > > [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/Agenda_Telco_11th_August_2011 > > See also: [3]IRC log > > [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-webtv-irc > > Attendees > > Present > Kazuyuki, Clarke_Stevens, Bob, Duncan, Francois, JanL, Aizu, > Tatsuya_Igarashi, Russell, Juhani > > Regrets > Chair > Clarke > > Scribe > francois > > Contents > > * [4]Topics > 1. [5]Draft statement on HTML5 LC bugs > 2. [6]Create new issue in MPTF for issue-18 (which was in > HNTF) > 3. [7]ViewPort-Support (ISSUE-37) > 4. [8]TV Services and Media Transport Mapping > * [9]Summary of Action Items > _________________________________________________________ > > Draft statement on HTML5 LC bugs > > Clarke: action from co-chairs to draft statement on HTML5 LC bugs > ... Kaz, status? > > Kaz: Discussed with co-chairs. But in the end, we won't need > comments sent by the IG since comments have already been sent. > > Clarke: so we won't send an endorsement from the Media Pipeline TF? > > Kaz: for HTML5 LC bugs, endorsement is not really needed. What's > important is to fill out the bugs, which was done. > ... I'll point the interest of the IG to Paul Cotton. > > Clarke: so the result is that anyone here should be encouraged to > send comments themselves. > > Jan: If I wanted to get further clarification about proposed > solutions, should I take it in bugzilla or discuss it here? > > <Clarke> So those interested in the outcome of LC bugs should join > the LC discussion directly to make specific comments > > Clarke: That was 13333. Been escalated as an issue, I think. > > Jan: The solution makes reference to objects. I'd like to work with > what they initiated. I don't want to be detrimental to the comment. > > Kaz: There is likely to be a second LC period. The working group > will accept further comments. > > Jan: your proposal is to go to the mailing-list directly. > > Kaz: not 100% sure about the procedure. I can investigate if you > prefer. > > <Clarke> Kaz to check on preferred procedure to address "closed" bug > > <scribe> ACTION: kaz to check on exact procedure to submit comments > to HTML5 LC bugs [recorded in > [10]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-webtv-minutes.html#action01] > > <trackbot> Created ACTION-70 - Check on exact procedure to submit > comments to HTML5 LC bugs [on Kazuyuki Ashimura - due 2011-08-18]. > > Create new issue in MPTF for issue-18 (which was in HNTF) > > <kaz> issue-18? > > <trackbot> ISSUE-18 -- Video tag support of MPEG2-TS -- raised > > <trackbot> [11]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/18 > > [11] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/18 > > <inserted> [12]VideoTagSupportMpeg2-ts > > [12] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/VideoTagSupportMpeg2-ts > > Jan: [scribe missed beginning of discussion because of echo] > ... Trying to map what was done in Open IPTV Forum. It's possible > that most of it is covered. > ... One issue was identified. > ... The ability to retrieve which components are available and if > there's any change to components that are available. > ... Right now, you only get "change" events on the default track, > but not on others. > ... That's highlighted in point number 1. > ... The second one is fairly well covered. I don't think there is > any issue. > ... The third one, there are two aspects. What you set the system > preferences, and the playout preferences. > ... [example given with subtitles] > ... There may need to be something to be done here. If we thing it's > at the system level, we may not need to do anything in the browser. > ... Fourth point: I haven't been able to map precisely what's > available. Something to do here, I think. > ... Fifth point is similar to fourth point. > ... Sixth point is that I'd like to explore something similar to the > video tag in SVG. > ... so that you don't need to embed an HTML video tag. What can we > expect W3C to do here? > > [Bob seems muted] > > Jan: I made a reference to the DAE spec where we have an appendix > that explained what was available. Now the video tag is more > complete, should be updated. > ... Shall we first conclude ISSUE-18? > > Bob: I had a couple of comments and questions. In general, we take a > deep look at requirements at American requirements for multi-video > and multi-audio. I think they are covered, now. Don't have any > problem with a use case even if it's covered. > ... I filed 3 bugs for HTML5, and one of the bugs covers what you > describe. > > Jan: missed that, could you reply on the mailing-list and send a > pointer? > > Bob: yes, will do that. Last point is that I don't know what it > means for the video tag to be in SVG, could you clarify? > > Jan: I'd like to have the same semantics for SVG as well. > ... SVG has its own video tag, but it's not the same. > > Bob: Oh, I see. > ... From a use case perspective, if you want to use SVG as part of > the UI, you could use that separately, right? > > Jan: yes, but then you're embedding, not using SVG natively. > ... Maybe W3C has a plan to merge both video. > > Bob: the more global issue is we've identified, at CableLabs, that > it would be valuable to take advantage of new media rendering > capabilities in the user agent, but have all the API and > infrastructure provided by the video tag. > ... One example is content protection via a plugin mechanism. > ... You'd still have support for tracks, etc. > ... It sounds that this concept could also apply to SVG. > > Jan: I'm wondering how transparent we can make this. > ... There might be an advantage to make the video tag a child of > your object in order to capture what is not covered by the video > tag. > ... I'm just exploring this possibility, to see if it might work > with browser manufacturers. > ... I suspect it might be preferable for them. > ... I haven't checked, so that's why I'm still in exploring phase. > > Bob: OK. One other thing the group could be interested in. A comment > from Philipp from Opera where he references an experience in the > WhatWG about streaming and Peer2Peer media > ... It introduces a local stream that can be associated with a media > element such as a video tag. > > <Clarke> Bob to send out link to MediaStream object > > Bob: Will provide a pointer. > > Jan: Can we allocate time in the third workshop to do some > brainstorming about it? > > Jan: For the technical discussion, useful to exchange ideas. > > <Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask if we want to meet with SVG WG during > TPAC2011 and to > > Kaz: We'd like you to send a position paper around that to hold a > panel session around that. > ... Preparing agenda with OC right now, good topic. > ... Also, why don't we hold a joint meeting with SVG during TPAC? > ... SVG will hold a F2F meeting there, so might be useful to hold a > joint meeting. > > Clarke: could be interesting. By that time, we might have a better > idea to bring the two tags together. > > Kaz: there is no plan to hold a Web and TV IG F2F meeting during > TPAC since we have one in September, but it still makes sense to > hold joint meetings with other groups. > ... TPAC is last week of October. > > fd: 1) Situation on different video tags in SVG and HTML well known > in W3C but I'm not aware of a concrete plan to merge the two right > now, so recommend keeping a use case that requires that. 2. To > exchange ideas on technical topics, the workshop is one place, but > the F2F IG that follows the workshop might be even better, because > there will be fewer people and people will be around the table. The > workshop is Sep. 19-20, the F2F IG is Sep. 21-22 workshop. > > <kaz> [ kaz will send out an announcement about the f2f and ask you > all for agenda idea, etc. ] > > Clarke: the table we have for discussion today may address some of > your needs, but we should address Duncan's point before. > > ViewPort-Support (ISSUE-37) > > Duncan: lots of discussion on the mailing-list. > > <kaz> issue-37? > > <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- View-Port support for Video Window -- raised > > <trackbot> [13]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/37 > > [13] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/37 > > Duncan: One way is to have a canvas tag around a video tag and then > do all sorts of tricks. > ... There was one comment that is was not dynamic though. > ... Also use of SVG was mentioned linked trough a metadata track. > ... Standardization possible around use of metadata to incorporate > SVG to manipulate video. > > <kaz> [14]ViewPort-Supprot > > [14] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/ViewPort-Support > > Duncan: The background for merging SVG and HTML video tags was > completely different, but some overlap. > > <Clarke> Issue 34 is adaptive video. the e-mails used the wrong > issue number > > <kaz> ok :) > > Duncan: wondering if anyone has any other thoughts on this. > > Bob: Continuing to refer to it as "viewport" issue is good. There > seems to be general agreement that the use case is valid. > ... That's my personal feeling. > > Clarke: In one of the email discussions, it's linked to ISSUE-34, so > maybe we need to recapture that as part of ISSUE-37 > ... What I would really like is if we could test some of these and > see if they really work so that we can clean up whether that's > covered or whether it generates new requirements. > > Duncan: yes, we'll try. > > Bob: Two of the subcases have predominated. One if to extend map to > video. The other is to take a subportion of a mosaic and manipulate > as you could with the full video stream. > ... Perhaps worth documenting. > > Jan: When referring to SVG, it seems that we embed, shouldn't we > highlight that it would be better not to have to embed SVG in your > HTML? > > Duncan: which way do you embed? > > Jan: well, the point is not to embed, but do it natively > ... and then it's supported more natively instead of working around > it. > > Duncan: sounds like a separate issue in itself, probably worth > calling for a separate issue. > > francois: SVG in HTML5 is not really "embedding" anymore. It's > included. > > <Clarke> Table under discussion: > [15]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions#Other_Di > scussions > > [15] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions#Other_Discussions > > TV Services and Media Transport Mapping > > Bob: We've taken a look at various events and application data are > carried in media transport. > ... looking at different common formats used throughout the world. > ... [going through the table] > ... e.g. Play an advertisement in the middle of a stream, ability to > have a descriptive audio track designed for the visually-impaired. > ... could be added as an audio description track. Closed captions > for similar purpose. > ... This data is transported in-band. > ... It's up to the user-agent to expose this data in different ways > to the video tag. > ... The first three would be application data that comes in-band. > ... They would be acted on only by script. > ... The others would be exposed as additional audio/text tracks. > They are handled well, I think, described in some details in the > HTML5 spec. > ... The columns list the different media transports we may have to > deal with. > ... There is MPEG TS2, MPEG4 ISOBMFF, the DASH work, or other > manifest files. > ... The question is: how do the user agent recognizes a secondary > audio track or a DTV trigger as part of application data? > ... There are a number of aspects that need to be defined. One is > for the various transport formats how the data is carried upon. > ... Then there's what formats need to be supported, and third issue > is how you expose the information in HTML5 to the application. > ... The HTML5 alludes to that when they talk about in-band tracks. > ... This work needs to be done. > ... One of the questions raised: how should this be considered > within the context of W3C? > ... We had some discussion with Ian Hickson and WhatWG. He seems to > be supportive of this. > > Jan: Do you expect to, as an exercise, maybe create an annex to a > W3C document, make a mapping? > ... I would think it's a good implementation guide. > > Bob: I don't have much insight as to how this should be specified in > a W3C spec. We would welcome working with W3C in a broader context > to work on this. > ... We'd be very supportive of that if W3C wants to take this on. > > Kaz: Several options. HTML WG is one of them. Another group named > MMI working group, working on EMMA, which includes several different > types with strong support for extensions. > ... Another possibility could be creating a Business group or a > community group for the discussion on the mapping. > ... The venue is important, but the discussion on the possible > mapping is much more important. > ... Do you think it makes sense to continue discussion in the Media > Pipeline TF? > ... Other options will take more time. > > Bob: We can do that. Over the lifetime of this TF, we are going to > fill out some of the cells. > ... As we get more details, I would like to come back to the TF and > share more insights as to what needs to be done. > > Clarke: we'll try to update the table as we move along. > > Francois: I'd like to emphasize that one of the main goals of the > task forces and the IG in general is to discover topics that would > require standardization. That table sounds like a very valuable > topic. In parallel to continuing the discussion in the task force to > refine the scope, note you can already start drafting a charter > proposal for a potential working group if you already have support > for this idea. Kaz and I would be happy to help you, there. > > Bob: Yes, we'd looking for broader input than the group of companies > that started this effort. To the point of starting working on a > standard, we do need the technical work of this table to be > reflected in a standard. > ... There are a variety of places where this could be done. > ... Both discussions are good to help making this standardized. IETF > could be an option as well, for instance. > > Clarke: good. Running out of time, so suggest to close the call. > > [Call adjourned] > > Summary of Action Items > > [NEW] ACTION: kaz to check on exact procedure to submit comments to > HTML5 LC bugs [recorded in > [16]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/11-webtv-minutes.html#action01] > > [End of minutes] > > -- Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice Tel: +81 466 49 1170
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 06:38:05 UTC