- From: Vickers, Mark <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 06:45:53 +0000
- To: Clarke Stevens <c.stevens@cablelabs.com>
- Cc: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Clarke, I don't want to rush something together for seamless playback that hasn't had the benefit of MPTF review. I want the benefit of the expert review and I don't want to undercut the consensus process. At most, you could follow-up on your email to the HTML WG and state that seamless API was on our list at the TPAC F2F, but we don't have a proposal ready. I do suggest we follow-on from the thread on this topic in MPTF and develop a seamless proposal ASAP. We can then let the HTML WG decide what to do about it. Whether or not it makes this revision of HTML, it's a good topic for MPTF to work on. Thanks, mav On Dec 15, 2011, at 10:33 PM, Mark Vickers wrote: > > On Dec 15, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Clarke Stevens wrote: > >> I just sent it 2 seconds before I got this message. > > Your email looks good. > > You should also add bugzilla entries for the two referenced bugs with links back to the appropriate MPTF proposal pages. > >> 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_Proposal >>> >>> 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). > > Fine. > >> >>> >>> 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. > > Thanks! > >> >>> >>>> 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. > > Thanks. > >> >>> >>> 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. > > Seamless splicing was in R7 in our requirements presentation to the HTML WG: > >> R7. Additional Media Parameters >> Suggested changes: >> • Ability to signal and play media spliced seamlessly onto end of current video. > > We did discuss it in the TPAC F2F with the HTML WG. When we were looking at the general option 3 case for ABR control, seamless playback was covered as a simple case. Now that we fell back to the option 1 simple control model for ABR, we left out seamless playback, even though it doesn't depend on ABR at all. > >> >>> >>> 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_Proposa >>>>> 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 07:04:04 UTC