- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 01:38:40 +0900
- To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
available at:
http://www.w3.org/2011/08/25-webtv-minutes.html
also as text below.
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Media Pipeline Task Force Teleconference
25 Aug 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/Agenda_Telco_25th_August_2011
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/08/25-webtv-irc
Attendees
Present
Kazuyuki, davidmays_JanL, Clarke, Bob, gondo, Russell,
duncanr, Giuseppe, Steven, Mark_Vickers, aizu, igarashi,
Mark_Watson, Juhani
Regrets
Chair
Clarke
Scribe
kaz
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]f2f
2. [6]issue review
* [7]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
f2f
clarke: anything to add?
... comments on the ML is welcome
issue review
clarke: any questions?
(nop)
issue-44?
<trackbot> ISSUE-44 -- Continuous Streaming by Continuous Playlist
-- raised
<trackbot> [8]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/44
[8] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/44
<Clarke> issue 44:
[9]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Continuou
s_Streaming_2'
[9] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Continuous_Streaming_2'
->
[10]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Continuo
us_Streaming_2 issue-44
[10] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Continuous_Streaming_2
clarke: any comments?
Mark Vickers joined
clarke: 44 is playlist
<scribe> ACTION: clarke to change the title of issue-44 from
"continuous streaming 2" to "playlist" [recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/25-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-73 - Change the title of issue-44 from
"continuous streaming 2" to "playlist" [on Clarke Stevens - due
2011-09-01].
bob: live streaming is supported by HTML5
... I'll add dependency
issue-45?
<trackbot> ISSUE-45 -- Time Synchronization (continuous stream) --
raised
<trackbot> [12]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/45
[12] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/45
clarke: time synchronization
... not sure a use case for MPTF
->
[13]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Time_Syn
chronization issue-45
[13] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Time_Synchronization
issue-46?
<trackbot> ISSUE-46 -- Program Boundary Identification in Continuous
Streams -- raised
<trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/46
[14] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/46
clarke: program boundary
->
[15]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Program_
Boundary issue-46
[15] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Program_Boundary
clarke: comments/additions?
bob: pointed out last week is timed text track mechanism
clarke: will add a note
... any other comments?
(nop)
issue-37?
<trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- View-Port support for Video Window -- raised
<trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/37
[16] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/37
<Clarke> [17]issue-37
[17] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/ViewPort-Support
clarke: are we ready to accept this?
<igarashi> zakim p7 is igarashi
clarke: couple ways for us to consider this
... suggest we go ahead and accept this
... any comments?
(nop)
RESOLUTION: accept issue-37
issue-45?
<trackbot> ISSUE-45 -- Time Synchronization (continuous stream) --
raised
<trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/45
[18] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/45
jan: would remove "This is not yet a real use case." :)
->
[19]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Time_Syn
chronization issue-45
[19] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Time_Synchronization
jan: not sure how to phrase this
... in a continuous stream what is the semantics of video tags
... text under bullet "1" is good description
clarke: ok
... next is content protection (issue-39)
issue-39?
<trackbot> ISSUE-39 -- TV Services and Media Transport Mapping --
raised
<trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/39
[20] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/39
<Clarke> Issue:
[21]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/TV_servi
ces_transport_mapping
[21] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/TV_services_transport_mapping
<trackbot> Created ISSUE-47 -
Http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/TV_services_
transport_mapping ; please complete additional details at
[22]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/47/edit .
[22] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/47/edit
->
[23]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/TV_servi
ces_transport_mapping issue-39
[23] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/TV_services_transport_mapping
bob: how UAs identify audio tracks
... type of media stream, e.g., MPEG2 TS, MPEG4 ISOBMFF, DASH
... DOM API specified
... the use case is in-band track types
... will update the use case
clarke: topic for f2f
bob: will commit before the f2f
clarke: any other comments?
(nop)
jan: 45 is updated
issue-40
issue-40?
<trackbot> ISSUE-40 -- Content delivery in distribution windows --
raised
<trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/40
[24] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/40
->
[25]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Delivery
_in_distribution_windows issue-40
[25] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Delivery_in_distribution_windows
bob: content protection discussion
... more objective space
... from Cable industry perspective, content owners are going to
require for content protection
... delivery windows
... use case is commercial content delivery
clarke: just on definition
bob: traditional definition
... could be captured within some of the other my use cases
jan: distribution window is DRM perspective
bob: motivation here is content owner has demand
clarke: a specific Web page linked to DRM?
bob: number of implication I have to address
... how HTML5 UA should support this
... business/commercial need should be addressed
kaz: good topic for workshop as well
clarke: bob submitted this topic to the workshp
bob: my paper covers this
kaz: will talk with the PC guys and suggest we talk about this
during the ws
juhani: question about issue-40, etc.
... what to standardize?
... interested in content security technical requirement
bob: will put that into the use case
... also mention what needs to be standardized
juhani: ok
issue-41?
<trackbot> ISSUE-41 -- Support of Content Owner Property Rights --
raised
<trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/41
[26] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/41
->
[27]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Content_
owner_rights issue-41
[27] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Content_owner_rights
bob: required by UltraViolet or DECE
... DECE has specific technical requirements
... consumer contents
<JanL> +q
bob: we'd like to cover DECE's requirements
clarke: ok
<JanL> -q
jan: the link in the use case is broken
... "Common content security technical requirements."
igarashi: my assumption is HTML just render
<Clarke> Here's a link to the common content protection
requirements:
[28]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Delivery
_in_distribution_windows/Common_content_secuirty_requirements
[28] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Delivery_in_distribution_windows/Common_content_secuirty_requirements
igarashi: no consideration on this kind of offline processing?
bob: good point
... the case of downloading content case
... streaming is most relevant for HTML5
... good observation to think about both streaming and downloading
igarashi: good to see both the cases
... there are technical differences
bob: agree
clarke: the correct URL for the broken link of "Common content
security technical requirements." is
[29]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Delivery
_in_distribution_windows/Common_content_secuirty_requirements
[29] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Delivery_in_distribution_windows/Common_content_secuirty_requirements
issue-42?
<trackbot> ISSUE-42 -- Content delivery to personal computers --
raised
<trackbot> [30]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/42
[30] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/42
->
[31]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Delivery
_to_pc issue-42
[31] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Delivery_to_pc
bob: both aspects are important
... An off-the-shelf browser such as Chrome, Firefox, Internet
Explorer, Opera or Safari.
... and An application incorporating a browser downloaded from a
service provider.
issue-43?
<trackbot> ISSUE-43 -- Content delivery to retail consumer
electronics devices -- raised
<trackbot> [32]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/43
[32] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/43
->
[33]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Delivery
_to_ce issue-43
[33] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Delivery_to_ce
bob: retail consumer electronics device with an embedded application
... more specialized
... (explains motivation)
davidmays: HTML5 UA should identify what content protection
capabilities they have so that applications can present appropriate
content based on that level of protection capability
bob: 1st one is general web delivery
... then content protection
... content protection is good or bad
<davidmays> HTML5 UA should identify what content protection
capabilities they have so that applications can present appropriate
content based on that level of protection capability
giuseppe: what if browsers are not shipped with DRM capability?
juhani: I'm for the requirements
... DRM support should be useful
... how to solve this problem should be defined
bob: plugins can be used by UAs for that purpose
... however, there is a link
<giuseppe> kaz is mark watson
giuseppe: plugin for DRM is wrong point to start...
... do you need fall-back mechanism?
... video element itself is not aware if plugins handle it
bob: we use video element for content protection
... existing video tag provides the capability
giuseppe: video tag itself handles rendering, not necessarily aware
of content protection
jan: how do we recommend extending video tag's capability itself
... good topic for the workshop
giuseppe: if you want to standardize, need to consider who does what
clarke: we'll continue the discussion next week
<Clarke> thanks, kaz
thanks, Clarke!
<Clarke> -Clarke
<Russell_Berkoff> thanks
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: clarke to change the title of issue-44 from
"continuous streaming 2" to "playlist" [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/25-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [35]scribe.perl version 1.136
([36]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/08/25 16:21:49 $
[35] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[36] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 16:38:33 UTC