W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > February 2011

Re: HTML5 Last Call May 2011 & DASH/Adaptive Streaming

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:32:46 +1100
Message-ID: <AANLkTimyK7Y0mWtQdibcgWYAGPu5jCLAiPkuh_EYVDEX@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>, Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>, "Richard Maunder (rmaunder)" <rmaunder@cisco.com>, public-web-and-tv@w3.org
I am increasingly thinking that even if we agree between browser
vendors on a common baseline codec, we will not want to restrict HTML5
to just deal with that codec, so the notion of alternative resources
will continue into the future, making it possible to even introduce
new codecs in the future. This then raises the question whether for
RTC there needs to be some kind of negotiation between the involved
browsers of users as to agree on a codec that they all support for the
duration of a RTC (and possibly other parameters, of course).

This reminds me of similar negotiations happening between a HTTP
client and server on mime types in which content should be delivered.
Maybe it is possible to build on that.

Cheers,
Silvia.


On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> I would not argue with your premise, but it is out of the question I think
> whether such a baseline would be included in HTML5. The best you might hope
> for (IMO) is an informative reference and an example usage shown in the spec
> text. But even that is unlikely to be attractive to the HTML5 editor.
> G.
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) <abegen@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I see a certain value for offering a baseline adaptive streaming client as
>> part of the html5 standard. At the end, if all the vendors will eventually
>> converge to what DASH spec offers, a baseline client would only accelerate
>> this convergence. A common client across different browsers and platforms
>> will make life easier for many of us.
>>
>> As long as the wg also includes provisions for parameterization of the
>> baseline client through an API (scripting or something else), one can still
>> customize the behavior of the player. Making all this codec independent is
>> of course highly desirable.
>>
>> -acbegen
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org
>> > [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Claude Dufourd
>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:57 PM
>> > To: Glenn Adams
>> > Cc: Richard Maunder (rmaunder); public-web-and-tv@w3.org
>> > Subject: Re: HTML5 Last Call May 2011 & DASH/Adaptive Streaming
>> >
>> > There is no question of including DASH technology in HTML5, just means
>> > to control DASHed media.
>> > What some participants of the workshop defended was the inclusion of a
>> > way to deal, within HTML5, with various options
>> > offered by DASH, such as choice of bit-rate, audio, subtitles, as well
>> > as support for trick modes (a.k.a. VCR-like controls).
>> > One possible solution is to add element/attribute syntax around the
>> > video object to allow that kind of control. Another
>> > solution is to add script APIs.
>> > Best regards
>> > JC
>> >
>> > On 15/2/11 18:38 , Glenn Adams wrote:
>> >
>> >       Even if it were done today, I doubt very much they would reference
>> > it from the HTML5 spec. There just isn't a strong
>> > reason to do so. Besides, they have chosen a technology neutral position
>> > with respect to both stream media formats and
>> > transports.
>> >
>> >       Glenn Adams
>> >
>> >
>> >       On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Richard Maunder
>> > <rmaunder@cisco.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >               Hi,
>> >
>> >               Interesting session in Berlin last week, thanks to all
>> > involved.
>> >
>> >               While we wait from the IG process & tools to form, I was
>> > interested in the implications of the HTML5 Last Call
>> > for May, especially the window for getting any DASH baseline or other
>> > adaptive streaming requirement into the spec:
>> >
>> >               http://www.w3.org/2011/02/htmlwg-pr.html
>> >
>> >               I'm not very familiar with the W3C processes, but my
>> > reading of them suggests it would be unlikely in this
>> > round if not in the spec by May?
>> >
>> >               Any thoughts on this?
>> >
>> >               Best wishes
>> >
>> >               Richard
>> >
>> >               Legal boilerplate follows.....
>> >               Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the
>> > author and do not necessarily represent those of Cisco.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > JC Dufourd
>> > Directeur d'Etudes/Professor
>> > Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
>> > Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing
>> > Telecom ParisTech, 46 rue Barrault, 75 013 Paris, France
>> > Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 23:33:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:03 UTC