- From: Clarke Stevens <C.Stevens@CableLabs.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:20:26 -0700
- To: Clarke Stevens <C.Stevens@CableLabs.com>, "Mark Vickers @ Comcast" <mark_vickers@cable.comcast.com>
- CC: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
I made changes to "bits/second," but now I'm not sure I should have. We talk about "bit rate" and most everything I've seen in other contexts uses bits/second, but it appears that the Flash APIs use bytes/second. Is there a common convention here? If not, I recommend bits/second since that is how the data rate is typically specified in the digital television and data access universes. Thanks, -Clarke On 12/15/11 11:10 PM, "Clarke Stevens" <C.Stevens@CableLabs.com> wrote: >I just sent it 2 seconds before I got this message. However, I'll comment >on your recommendations below. > >-Clarke > >On 12/15/11 10:47 PM, "Mark Vickers @ Comcast" ><Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > >>Minor edits: >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/HTML_Error_codes >>> >>>http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/ADR_Minimal_Control_Model_Proposa >>>l >> >>Minimal Control Model needs explanation. Perhaps copy explanation of the >>three models into this doc or link back to other doc. > >I did include a link back to the architectural models (although it is >towards the end of the message). > >> >>Shouldn't bytes/second should be bits/second. Was this discussed? The SVG >>API and other IETF APIs are bits/second. > >Since the message includes on links to the wiki, I can check and make the >change (if necessary) on this. I agree that it should be bits per second. > >> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/Netflix_Content_Protection >> >>May need to be some mention that there hasn't been time for full review >>by or consensus of MPTF yet. > >We must be on the same wavelength. That's exactly what I did. > >> >>Where do we reference the seamless playback use case and API? > >It's not referenced in the current response since we don't really have >anything to link to yet. I still have an hour if we want to try to put >something together. Would we link it to the same two bugs as the other >proposals (parameters and feedback)? I'm not sure that was specifically >requested from any particular bugs like the other proposals were. > >> >>Thanks, >>mav >> >>On Dec 15, 2011, at 9:12 PM, Clarke Stevens wrote: >> >>> I'm starting my final edits now and will send in the proposals shortly. >>> Last call for changes or comments. >>> >>> -Clarke >>> >>> On 12/15/11 9:19 PM, "Mays, David" <David_Mays@comcast.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm ok with the changes. Did you submit yet? >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: Clarke Stevens [C.Stevens@CableLabs.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:08 PM >>>> To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG >>>> Subject: Re: [MEDIA_PIPELINE_TF] Content protection proposal >>>> >>>> Although we have not really had a chance to review it as a group, I am >>>> considering providing Mark Watson's content protection proposal as >>>> feedback to the HTML WG in addition to the HTML Errors and ABR Minimal >>>> Control proposals. >>>> >>>> My motivation is that same as that for the ABR Minimal Control >>>>proposal. >>>> It is a useful and well-considered proposal that may require some >>>> modification, but it provides a basis for discussion and a path for >>>> inclusion in HTML5. >>>> >>>> In other words, our feedback on LC Bugs 13625 and 12399 that is due >>>>today >>>> would include HTML Errors, ABR Minimal Control and Netflix Content >>>> Protection: >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/HTML_Error_codes >>>> >>>>http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/ADR_Minimal_Control_Model_Propos >>>>a >>>>l >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/Netflix_Content_Protection >>>> >>>> I plan to send this feedback to HTML WG this evening after people have >>>> had a chance to comment, edit, etc. >>>> >>>> Let me know what you think. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -Clarke >>>> >>>> P.S. For your convenience, here are the links to the relevant bugs: >>>> >>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13625 >>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12399 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
Received on Friday, 16 December 2011 06:21:06 UTC