- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:40:26 +0900
- To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
available at:
http://www.w3.org/2012/03/12-webtv-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Clarke!
Note:
-----
The next call will be held on Monday, April 2.
Please note that Daylight Saving will start in Europe as well
in two weeks, so the time should be:
- 15:00Z
- 8:00 US Pacific
- 11:00 US Eastern
- 17:00 Europe
- 24:00 Korea/Japan
Thanks,
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
TV Profile Teleconference
12 Mar 2012
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2012Mar/0019.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/03/12-webtv-irc
Attendees
Present
Kazuyuki, giuseppe, Clarke, glenn, Juhani,
Jan_Lindquist, Yosuke, David_Corvoysier, Dewa
Regrets
Chair
Giuseppe
Scribe
Clarke
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Liaison with OIPF
2. [6]Profiling criteria
3. [7]CSS specs we may want to reference
4. [8]use case functionality
5. [9]next call
* [10]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
Liaison with OIPF
Opent IPTV Forum
giuseppe: open networks and managed network deployments
... how to properly reference mostly WIP sources
... How have other organizations addressed this problem
... They are asking us for advice
... a) reference specific version with date
... Means regular review and update. This is a bit messy
... b) reference current draft without a date
... need to define a way of working to minimize changes
... c) only reference proposed recommendation
... d) delay any work until specs are at proposed
recommendations level
<kaz> [11]liaison letter (member-only)
[11]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-web-and-tv/2012Mar/att-0000/___Q_OIPF-AOL-SOL-227-R02-Liaison_5Fletter_5Fto_5FW3C_5Fon_5Fspecification_5Freferencing.PDF__
giuseppe: e) reference latest version and decide which version
to use later
... f) define some profile that can be referenced directly and
keep track of change
... g) automatically use latest version available at time of
publication
... h) any other option?
... Looking at 2D transforms, 3D transforms, HTML5 canvas, CSS
changes
... Good to get feedback firsthand in this group
... want to also get this out to other groups (e.g. process
group)
... floor open for comments
... Kaz mentioned this problem with other specs.
<kaz> [12]EPUB 3
[12] http://idpf.org/epub/30/spec/epub30-overview.html#references
Kaz: There is a similar case in EPUB 3
... They used undated URL
... This is a working draft specification
... They need to change their URL if this changes
<kaz> [13]Geolocation spec
[13] http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html#geolocation_interface
Kaz: Geolocation is another examples
... Even though HTML5 spec is not stable, they will add note
within spec
... The HTML5 spec will let them know when features are stable
... Geolocation also refers to WEB IDL
... They need to change the reference to WEB IDL - which has
changed a bit
... Each section might change
giuseppe: one option is to use the section name rather than
number
kaz: it requires HTML5 or CSS3 editors to use name rather than
number references
giuseppe: glen on queue
<giuseppe> ack
glen: a couple comments
... the official language on status of these documents
specifies inappropriate to refer to these other than as WIP
... need to put WIP somewhere in reference
... in the case of EPUB, the URLs are generic TR+shortname
reference that would not be required to change
... would not anticipate process committee changing this
requirement
... before doc is in CR stage it is questionable whether it
should be referenced at all
... unlikely to get consensus on what "stable" means.
... I would expect significant changes to HTML before PR status
giuseppe: People have different opinions, but useful to collect
examples of how others are handling the problem
... we can collect a few of the best options.
... could probably reduce the scope to a few possiblities
glenn: I would also follow up
... in a recent interview with Jaffe
... changes to accelerate the standards process
... they should be looking at this problem and formulating
policy
... we should pass any input we collect on to them
<corvoysier>
[14]http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57390399-264/jeff-jaffe-l
ights-a-fire-under-web-standardization/
[14]
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57390399-264/jeff-jaffe-lights-a-fire-under-web-standardization/
giuseppe: it's going through us because the liaison was
established through us
glenn: I'm working with one standards group that decided to
indirectly reference them through html5 specification
... This in turn has references to other specs
... this reduced the number of open ended references
giuseppe: Will be an issue solved for basic DOM and some other
areas.
... any other opinions?
jan: Really appreciate the insight that drafts should be
consistently referenced
... That will help external bodies do references
<glenn> link on Jeff Jaffe discussing accelerating process et
al
<glenn>
giuseppe: We can run this through w3c management again before
responding to OIPF
... I will draft first letter to them
kaz: thanks for the proposal
... suggest we include PLH and Ralph
thx
giuseppe: people can reply on the list if they agree with my
conclusions
... next point
Profiling criteria
giuseppe: only thing we have agreed on is the name
... I created the online document
<kaz> [15]Giuseppe's proposal
[15]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2012Feb/0055.html
giuseppe: it was interesting to get feedback on what should be
included in Profiling docuemnt
... how do we address specs with overlapping topics
... Should we include profiles for different conditions
... Any feedback on any of these points?
glenn: if we try to consider individual features, we will never
reach closure
giuseppe: probably one way forward is to have some
consideration inside specs on whether they are stable
(especially important if various features are stable and not
stage)
glenn: try to create a fuzzy document that is more generic in
areas of technology defined by W3C
... should divide the idea of a profile into generic (abstract)
and concrete
... concrete may specify individual features
... abstract can specify more general featues
... may be useful to try to get consensus on an abstract
profile
giuseppe: I suggested "meta" profile. Maybe that is the same
idea
<glenn> if we can't reach a consensus on an abstract profile,
we'll never conclude on a concrete profile
giuseppe: any other opinions on this?
... for the reference itself, I used a TR version (current
approach). Other options include editor draft
jan: if we have abstract list of requirements, how do we deal
with that over time?
... is this a continuously updating reference?
glenn: I think thats TBD
... if we define an abstract profile then we could make
reference to abstract pages.
... w3.org/TR/CSS has "CSS Snapshot 2010" which references CSS
levels 1 through 3 and other items
... premature to make conclusion on that yet.
jan: maybe can let it progress
... then see what is needed. freeze when group decides it is
appropriate
giuseppe: 1st step is to try to delimit which technology to use
... feature testing and performance testing are two important
items
... 1) determine if parts are missing
... 2) test performance
... This is just getting started in W3C. What are best
practices?
giuseppe: could be in scope for profile work
... another area that is covered is what to do about areas
where HTML5 is providing technology, but relying on external
specification
... should we undertake this topic (e.g. reference to metadata
defined elsewhere)
... trying to understand what we want to put in this profile
corvoysier: ... anything specific?
giuseppe: in-band tracks is an example
... details of what is in-band depends on several factors
defined elsewhere
... same information can be exposed differently depending on
geographic location or transport method
... i don't have a concrete proposal yet
... people need to be aware of the functionality
... there are different levels we can reach. We should talk to
these other organizations.
corvoysier: will need liaisons
giuseppe: I'm talking about work that may not be done yet
... I will provide more examples later online
... looking at the agenda again...
glenn: do we have a conclusion on what to call a profile
resolution: title will be Web Media Profile
giuseppe will post on wiki
<giuseppe> sibtitles: Guidelines for integration of interactive
media services in a browser-based environment
<kaz> [16]draft document
[16] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/tvprofile/tv.html
CSS specs we may want to reference
<kaz> [17]draft document
[17] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/tvprofile/tv.html
glenn: which list are you referring to?
<giuseppe>
[18]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/tvprofile/tv.html#
css
[18] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/tvprofile/tv.html#css
giuseppe: now just section headings and link.
glenn: I would not agree to including this particular list
... in notes it should say that the contents of this section
and which specifications are mandatory is under discussion and
TBD
... I'm not sure this is the final list to be supported
... just to prevent misunderstanding
giuesppe: I will put in a note
... want to make sure it is relevant for that industry area
glenn: CSS properties only lists CSS 2.0 and not 2.1, Box model
not being actively developed, etc.
giuseppe: I am working on an update as well
... to kaz, do we have an update for bugzilla account?
kaz: Looks like it has now been created, I will pass on
glenn: CSS3 referring to high-end typesetting features that may
not be relevant. View mode? most everything needs a lot of
review and discussion.
giuseppe: we have to pinpoint which specs we're interested in
glenn: do we need any references to SMIL?
giuseppe: put links in to provoke reaction so people can react
on why they think is relevant
glenn: should support HTML5 and syntax, CSS, DOM4, - that sort
of high-level abstraction that may not require mapping to
specific spec.
... raises question: why do it unless it is useful
... need to choose balance points to make useful
giuseppe: 1st step at specification level
... need to know what to implement and support
... I'm open to input and will try to go through this
... participate in list to make your comments known
kaz: another topic
... got comment on how to handle OIPF reference
... has letter from OIPF
... They know of this reference problem and can discuss on
mailing list
<inserted> kaz: so I'll forward the liaison letter to the
liaison ML, and ask W3C Team mates for opinions
use case functionality
giuseppe: use the wiki or mailing list to provide your input
... suggestion to do survey of use cases and consider coverage
of recent web specs
... we can do this and use our web space
next call
giuseppe: will continue with monthly call (first monday in
general)
... there is call info on wiki
... I will send reminder
... any other business?
... closing call... see you next month
[ adjourned ]
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [19]scribe.perl version
1.136 ( [20]CVS log)
$Date: 2012/03/12 16:40:31 $
[19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 16:41:32 UTC