[all] September f2f meeting agenda - IG report, TF discussions, etc. (was Re: [MEDIA_PIPELINE_TF] Minutes teleconference call 2011-08-11)

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:

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.

- 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

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/09/webtv/



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
> 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
> 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