- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:32:42 +0900
- To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
available at:
http://www.w3.org/2013/04/10-webtv-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Bin!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Web and TV Interest Group Teleconference
10 Apr 2013
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2013/04/10-webtv-irc
Attendees
Present
Clarke, Bin, Bryan, Yosuke, Kaz, Mark_Vickers, Sheau
Regrets
Chair
Clarke
Scribe
Bin
Contents
* [3]Topics
* [4]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
Clarke starts meeting and goes over the agenda
Topic Final update of liaison letter
Clarke: 2. Follow-through: How do we maximize response from
liaison letter and internal poll?
Clarke: individual responsibility to fulfill that
... does anyone know how to get the response from people asap?
Sheau - internal or external>
Clarke: either one
<sheau> Bin, that was me Sheau speaking.
Clarke: I think these people haven't signed formal liaison
agreement
sorry
<bryan> I agree, for those that we're members of we can reach
out to the liaison lead to ensure quick followup; for OMA we
are involved and can help get a response by june.
Clarke: anything else for the liaison letter?
Topic use cases
Clarke: no new ones
... we want to decide the requirement for testing, and test
tool
... we have candidate use cases, we need to decide whether to
approve it or not
... criteria is if there are requirement generated from use
cases
<Clarke> use case 1:
[5]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Web_%26_TV_Testing
_Discussions/Improve_Web_Platform_Consistency
[5]
http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Web_%26_TV_Testing_Discussions/Improve_Web_Platform_Consistency
Clarke: what requirement does this use case add?
... I think it does
... what do you think if we pass it on to testing TF, will it
be accepted
Mark agree that this use case will generate requirement
<bryan> Mark, I agree we need to document the need while it's
still not met
Clarke, any other comment?
scribe: anyone oppose to adopt thos use case?
move on to next use case
Mark, it is important to have it be recorded
scribe: if there is wording change, certainly welcome
Clarke, or we can say it is recommended to pass this test suite
Mark, outside group referencing W3C test, but what you are
saying W3C also references outside tests
Clarke, we are providing our perspective of requirement to W3C
test ecosystem
scribe: any other comments to this use case?
... recommned to accept it.
... anyone oppose?
<Clarke> use case 3:
[6]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Web_%26_TV_Testing
_Discussions/performance_testing
[6]
http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Web_%26_TV_Testing_Discussions/performance_testing
Next one is Giuseppe's
Browser performance testing
Clarke it's a performance sort of test
scribe: my question is whether we need performance test
<bryan> yes we do
Bryan, we really need performance test, such as Coremob we have
requirment of performance test
scribe: usaually it is part of functional test
... at least to have ability to measure
<bryan> time to start a stream and average frame rate for
example are big impacts to user experience and need to be
assessable at the least
scribe: to understand what the user experience will be
... to make sure network environment is consistent
Mark, agree to what Bryan said
scribe: what we are really going for is the binding
functionality for correct implementation
<bryan> if you ask OEMs they will argue that device variation
makes performance tests less useful, and we agree that devices
vary for valid reasons e.g. processor class, memory. but at
least being able to consistently measure performance, with
elimination of variables where possible, allows you to assess
the result for your own purposes. but W3C does not need to set
expectations, except as a minimum and then probably only as a
recommendation
scribe: a good example is "bound" for class of devices
Sheau, acceptable if use case describes the need well
scribe: suggest to add additional clarification of minimum
requirement of user acceptability in addition to metrics of
benchmark
Clarke, if you think anything needs to be added, feel free to
edit it
scribe: suggest it to be accepted
... anyone oppose?
Clarke, next use case is Bin's
<Clarke> use case 4:
[7]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Web_%26_TV_Testing
_Discussions/MSE_Testing
[7]
http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Web_%26_TV_Testing_Discussions/MSE_Testing
Clarke, we had some discussion in the last CC here.
scribe: the question is if this MSE use case adds requirement
to pass on to testing TF
Mark, it might be good if we add specific test cases
scribe: might be good guidance to test team
Clarke, I don't see MSE test has covered, such as to deal with
media stream with particular start time, multiple simultaneous
track, adapted bit rate
scribe: there are several things to extend to testing
requirement
... my recommendation is similar to last one
... to extend requirement
... assign action item to Clarke, Bin and Mark to add specific
test cases
... add action to communicate with HTML WG
... recommend to accept this use case
anyone oppose?
<Clarke> use case 5:
[8]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Web_%26_TV_Testing
_Discussions/EME_Testing
[8]
http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Web_%26_TV_Testing_Discussions/EME_Testing
Clarke, next is use case 5
scribe: very similar to last one
... nature of security of CDM, and probably add value to
testing platform
Sheau, does the order of 3 scenario suggest anything?
scribe: feel like the 3rd one should be the 1st
<bryan> CDM it's similar though to codecs for video in that the
test environment needs to support a variety of codecs as well
as CDMs. Specific CDM supporting test environments may need to
be provided (server side) by whoever defined/deploys the CDM
Mark, nothing implies in the order
scribe: 1 and 2 represent the fundamental functionality, 3 also
adds graphics transportation
... 3 is orthogonal to 1 and 2
<bryan> and presumably the CDM-drawn bits are not (or may not
be) accessible to the application, e.g. taking snapshots in a
canvas
Clarke, my recommendation is to accept this
scribe: anyone oppose?
One more use case 6
<Clarke> use case 6:
[9]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Web_%26_TV_Testing
_Discussions/NSD_Testing
[9]
http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Testing/Web_%26_TV_Testing_Discussions/NSD_Testing
Clarke, last case of network service discovery
scribe: gives use agent a particular way to access local
network resources
... gives additional security things, cross-origina features,
and manage those features to let user control
... unique test platform features required by this use case
... need to add more specifics on that
... recommend to accept it
... anyone oppose?
Clarke, a more general question is that the above use cases may
not cover the test coverage adequately
scribe: call for additional use cases to cover broader web and
tv area more adequately
Clarke, basically we have gone throuhg use case and requirement
scribe: main testing group is evolving
... look for suggestion on how to accomplish our goals
... look for advice and recommendations
... is their landscape there clearly enough? contracting tools?
... or the tools are already there, and we cannot add anything
there yet
Bryan, haven't heard any contracting tools
scribe: but they might hire someone to add vendor's test suites
Clarke, advice on how to meet our deliverables
scribe: any other business to discuss?
meeting adjourned
<Clarke> Thanks for scribing, Bin
sure
let me generate the minutes
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [10]scribe.perl version
1.137 ([11]CVS log)
$Date: 2013-04-11 01:28:04 $
[10] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[11] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
Tel: +81 466 49 1170
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2013 01:33:26 UTC