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

Re: webtv-ISSUE-18 (JanL): Video tag support of MPEG2-TS [HOME_NETWORK_TF]

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:54:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4DECA3C6.3080102@w3.org>
To: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
CC: Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com>, Web and TV Interest Group WG <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, Jan Lindquist <jan.lindquist@ericsson.com>, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
On 06/03/2011 05:24 PM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 09:54:45 +0200, Jan Lindquist <jan.lindquist@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> My only be concern is with timing. To delay discussing the use case until a new TF is created may affect discussions with HTML5 WG. I understand there are pressures to complete HTML5 video tag as soon as possible. I would request if we can discuss the use case and eventually move it to a new TF once it is created.
> Note that the fact that HTML5 is in last call NOW make it quiet unlikely that any extension will be ready in time to go into this version of the spec,
> if we are talking about a major addition that still need to be discussed, defined, presented to the HTML Wg etc.
> This doesn't mean that this cannot be discussed and worked on by this group first and by a WG later on and included in the next version of HTML (6?) when is mature
> I think the HTML groups is also collecting a list of "new features" for next releases, so our input could be provided to them.
> Kaz and Francois (CCed) should be able to confirm/clarify a bit what I just said about the W3C procedures and deadlines and maybe even give us more details.

I confirm: the group is very unlikely to add any new feature to the HTML5 specification at this time, and will begin to discuss new features for next version.

Last Call Comments need to be sent by 3 August 2011. The Web and TV IG may send such comments to the HTML working group (and anyone can send comments on his own, of course). The HTML Working Group will follow the same decision policy as before, documented here:

In particular, a Bugzilla bug needs to be created with a description of the problem and a concrete proposed solution:

See also the HTML5 Last Call FAQ at:

The IG has more time to suggest new features for next version. There is no deadline for that as of today.


> /g
>> Best Regards,
>> JanL
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bob Lund
>> Sent: den 31 maj 2011 17:45
>> To: Web and TV Interest Group WG
>> Subject: RE: webtv-ISSUE-18 (JanL): Video tag support of MPEG2-TS [HOME_NETWORK_TF]
>> While there may be <video> tag requirements imposed by MPEG-2 TS, it doesn't seem to fit within the scope of the HNTF, which is addressing how home network services get discovered and used by Web content.
>> There has been some discussion about starting a new TF to address how adaptive bit-rate delivery should be accommodated in HTML5. This would seem to be the place to also examine the MPEG-2 TS issue raised.
>> Thanks,
>> Bob Lund
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-and-tv-
>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Web and TV Interest Group Issue Tracker
>>> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 2:27 AM
>>> To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
>>> Subject: webtv-ISSUE-18 (JanL): Video tag support of MPEG2-TS
>>> webtv-ISSUE-18 (JanL): Video tag support of MPEG2-TS [HOME_NETWORK_TF]
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/18
>>> Raised by: Jan Lindquist
>>> On product: HOME_NETWORK_TF
>>> The support of MPEG2-Transport Stream is fundamental to viewing
>>> content in the home (ex. TV). Applications require an API to have
>>> control and access of MPEG2-TS components.
>>> This use case puts explicit requirements of what the the application
>>> may requires support from the video tag (HTML5). While video tag
>>> support many of the indicated implementation requirements not all are supported.
>>> This use case may not explicitly indicate the missing portions but
>>> highlights the full set of implementation requirements.
Received on Monday, 6 June 2011 09:54:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:05 UTC