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

I think folks need to agree on the container format not the codec type. A good container format will be good for several codecs that exist today and will yet to come. 

-acbegen

On Feb 15, 2011, at 6:33 PM, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 23:40:59 UTC