- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 01:18:32 +0900
- To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
available at:
http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-webtv-minutes.html
also as text below.
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Media Pipeline Task Force Weekly Call
07 Jun 2012
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/Agenda_Telco_7th_June_2012
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/06/07-webtv-irc
Attendees
Present
Kazuyuki, David_Dorwin, Glenn_Adams, Niklas_Schmücker,
Clarke_Stevens, Bob_Lund, Kevin_Streeter, Duncan_Rowden,
Aaron_Colwell
Regrets
Chair
Clarke
Scribe
kaz
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Bug review
2. [6]Adaptive Bitrate Requirements
* [7]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
Bug review
clarke: any update 13359?
bob: no update
... although the bug change the state
-> [8]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13359 bug
13359
[8] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13359
clarke: what about any other bugs?
... changes?
Adaptive Bitrate Requirements
->
[9]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/mpreq/MPTF-ADB-Requ
irements.html ABR Requirements
[9] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/mpreq/MPTF-ADB-Requirements.html
clarke: there was bad link and got fixed
... in Terminology section
... Adaptive Bit Rate , Adaptive Bit Rate Method, and Adaptive
Bit Rate System
... definition updated
... make sense?
kevin: seems reasonable
clarke: definition of "Open Source"?
<glenn> thinks we should avoid defining
<glenn> suggests simply putting it in quotes
<glenn> yes
<glenn> quote Open Source, as in "Open Source"
kaz: we can refer to W3C Glossary but maybe we don't have to
define it
Glenn: can quote Open Source, as in "Open Source"
clarke: objections?
(no objections)
clarke: section 4.1.7, last sentence
... "Support for different ABR systems should not require any
proprietary modification of the user agent"
acolwell: not sure about "any proprietary modification"
clarke: secret information
markV: must be implemented by JavaScript?
clarke: in another words, no secret information is required by
ABR vendors/systems
kaz: the period at the bottom of the line is missing :)
clarke: ok
... next 4.1.8
... "The ability for a browser vendor to implement playback of
ABR media in accordance with the requirements in this document
must be supported."
... any ideas?
markV: sounds fine
clarke: 4.1.9
... was not clear
... now "While specific implementations may include
vendor-specific parameters for special features, the parameters
required for basic playback should be publicly specified."
acolwell: good
clarke: 4.1.10
... "While specific implementations may include vendor-specific
error codes, the error codes required for basic operation and
diagnosis should be publicly specified. However, the particular
ABR systems to be supported is an implementation decision."
acolwell: vendor specific error codes?
... not sure
... does that mean you need stop playing?
kevin: what if we have set of errors?
clarke: error class for various errors?
acolwell: it depends on how you define error codes
... how to identify if we can go ahead if the error is minor
clarke: error codes might be vendor-specific
acolwell: currently we don't have any vendor-specific error
codes
clarke: what about you, Kevin?
kevin: typically we're just mapping to existing error codes
clarke: do we have enough flexibility?
... return text message, etc.?
kevin: error object handles error codes asis
clarke: we could add a statement saying if vendor would like to
add additional mechanism...
kevin: more specific status information, e.g., just return code
but don't panic
clarke: you should suggest concrete text here
<KevinStreeter> "a mechanism for supporting implementation
specific status should be supported"
clarke: next "Byte Range, Events, ..."
... and "6. Security"
... use cases on content protection
(no specific comments)
clarke: section "7. Identified Gaps"
... buffer management, capability detection, and append URL
... buffer management is implementation specific
... anything to say about that?
duncan: other content provider might want advertise into
buffers
... re-buffer the one previously buffered
clarke: would we support that?
kevin: +1
acolwell: requirement should be inserting other contents?
duncan: yes
clarke: what about "Capability Detection"?
... capability must be identified
... I was hoped this section was empty
... if we identify gaps, we add use cases and update the
"Identified Gaps" section
acolwell: what kind of use cases should be included?
clarke: will send a message to the ML and ask for opinion about
Capability Detection
... what about "Append URL"?
acolwell: appending URL should be allowed given JavaScript
... but mixing the requirements of adaptive streaming and media
handling
clarke: suggesting you can avoid payload of JavaScript?
... if your implementation have payload for JavaScript, it
should be avoided?
kevin: do we want to make it a requirement?
... or is that sort of option?
duncan: throw through JavaScript layer for embedded device
kevin: we have a mechanism for embedded device
clarke: not pass through?
bob: if we want it available it should be added
acolwell: BLOB URL might be appended
clarke: don't want to restrict implementations
... requirement is implementation should not restrict
implementation either load the payload through JavaScript or
not
... minimizing copy
... "9. Proposals" and "A. Acknowldegements"
... will update the document
kaz: minor question: A and B are appendices. right?
clarke: yes
... will do the same review for Content Protection as well
[ adjourned ]
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [10]scribe.perl version
1.136 ( [11]CVS log)
$Date: 2012/06/07 16:15:15 $
[10] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[11] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 16:19:02 UTC