[apis] minutes - 11 December 2013

available at:
 http://www.w3.org/2013/12/11-webtv-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks for taking these minutes, Giuseppe!

Kazuyuki

---

   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                   Web and TV IG - Media APIs TF call

11 Dec 2013

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/12/11-webtv-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Wook, Kaz, Paul, JC, Sunghei, Giri, Daniel, Giuseppe,
          Bin, Sheau, Louay, Igarashi

   Regrets
          Cyril, Rickelton-Abdi

   Chair
          Bin

   Scribe
          Giuseppe

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]gap analysis
     * [5]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

gap analysis

   <Bin_Hu> [6]gap analysis document

      [6] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvACjV6qSvmxdEctdjYwa2JOalZLOG10elE1LVRZNlE#gid=1

   Bin: it seems we only have few question marks to address
   ... also need to finilize email discussions

   Bin: NSD doesn't have device autentication in scope
   ... so B11 should probably be blank
   ... do people agree? no objection
   ... req7 (B12) also should go to blank, agree? agreed
   ... for B12, there is ongoing discussion on the mailing list,
   so let's take it later.
   ... let's go to col C
   ... I propose to set C9 blank as HTML5 doesn't address
   authentication directly
   ... agreed? No objection

   (C9, C10, C11 turned into blank)

   Bin: col D only one comment on tuner API, how should we resolve
   it

   giuseppe: it will be solved as part of the tuner API
   discussion, so comment can be closed

   Bin: one left, D30

   Giri: recording is part of WebRTC
   ... is probably reasonable to say that is not in scope for
   HTML5
   ... but maybe there should be something in html5.1 to make
   recording of a video element possible

   giuseppe: then maybe we should leave it red as would be good to
   bring it up with the HTML WG

   Giri: yes I agree, but one comment here
   ... there is a green in the webrtc column because for some use
   cases WebRTC can certainly be used
   ... but this is not for all use cases

   Sheau: if we have a red here, shouldn't we say the same for
   authentication?

   Giri: I'm not sure what the relevance is for html5 of all of
   them

   giuseppe: I think the requirement is too highlevel to drive
   work/discussion in HTML5
   ... if we want something to happen we need to dive into the
   details
   ... and point out what is missing

   Giri: agree
   ... [makes some examples from the TV industry]

   Sheau: it seems to me that at this point we don't know exactly
   what we mean
   ... so we don't have enough elements to decide
   ... maybe we should actually put green as html5 enables
   authentication

   giuseppe: I agree with Sheau

   Bin: so let's close D30 red
   ... and let's change D9-10-11 to green
   ... same for c9-10-11

   <Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask if "HTML 5.1" here means
   "possible HTML extensions other than all the existing specs"

   Kaz: It seems this "HTML 5.1" category includes not only the
   requirements for the existing 5.1 extensions but also those for
   the possible new HTML 5.X spec.
   ... So I'm wondering if we should split the html5.1 column into
   two, (1) the existing HTML 5.1 and (2) the future version of
   5.x.

   giuseppe: no.

   Bin: no

   Kaz: OK. Let's continue to use "HTML 5.1" as the label then

   Bin: I propose to address question marks first
   ... next is G27
   ... there is a suggestion to leave that blank
   ... since the eme doesn't prevent nor prescribe support for
   offline, is not a matter of spec but of implementation
   ... what do you think?

   giuseppe: agree

   Bin: any objection? none
   ... after that there is column J
   ... J6/7 proposal to leave it blank

   since the req. is not related to offline storage capability

   Bin: any objection? none
   ... same applies to other questionmarks in column J
   ... J19 and J16

   Bin: going back to Column E (WebRTC)

   giuseppe: maybe if we look at the tuner and recording gaps what
   we really miss is a way to model a broadcast stream that can be
   later used with video element
   ... recording API etc

   Bin: so the proposed conclusion seems to be that maybe that for
   the recording requirement can be addresses togheter to the
   tuner discussion

   JC: maybe this is a good hint also on what is the tuner
   discussion about and could suggest what name to give or how to
   characterize it

   Giri: we can probably ask the recording TF for clarification on
   how those APIs are intended to be used

   giuseppe: maybe we should wrap up first

   Sheau: there are some requirements like rights control specific
   of the broadcast stream that needs to be captured
   ... and that we need to make sure are not lost when the stream
   is abstracted into a video element

   Bin: conclusion is to wrap up the gap analysis first and then
   we follow-up with relevant WGs
   ... comment on web storage and storage requirements

   giuseppe: yes I think is not applicable as you wouldn't record
   large amount of data using web storage

   Bin: ok. so agreed to make this blank

   Bin: Column G, keep the comment at G29

   Bin: other comments seem to be just clarifications on how
   things work
   ... seems we are done. So the next step is to capture the gap
   analysis
   ... how do we formalize this?

   giuseppe: we can follow what other TFs have done

   giuseppe: (put URLs of the previous TF requirements)

   -> [7]http://www.w3.org/TR/hnreq/ Home Network TF Requirements

      [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/hnreq/

   ->
   [8]https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/mpreq/adbreq.html
   MPTF Requirements

      [8] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/mpreq/adbreq.html

   ->
   [9]http://www.w3.org/TR/hnreq/#categorization-of-requirements-a
   nd-next-steps Requirements categorization (in the HNTF
   Requirements doc)

      [9] http://www.w3.org/TR/hnreq/#categorization-of-requirements-and-next-steps

   Bin: so what are the next steps?

   Giuseppe: I can edit a document that includes requirements and
   use cases from the wiki (for now)

   Bin: I can prepare a strawman gap analysis based on the
   discussion so far

   <scribe> ACTION: giuseppe to start editing a req. document for
   this TF [recorded in
   [10]http://www.w3.org/2013/12/11-webtv-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-178 - Start editing a req. document
   for this tf [on Giuseppe Pascale - due 2013-12-18].

   <scribe> ACTION: Bin to prepare a strawman gap analysis
   [recorded in
   [11]http://www.w3.org/2013/12/11-webtv-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-179 - Prepare a strawman gap analysis
   [on Bin Hu - due 2013-12-18].

   Bin: any other biz? no

   <jcverdie> Thanks a lot Bin:)

   <kaz> [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Bin to prepare a strawman gap analysis [recorded
   in
   [12]http://www.w3.org/2013/12/11-webtv-minutes.html#action02]
   [NEW] ACTION: giuseppe to start editing a req. document for
   this TF [recorded in
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2013/12/11-webtv-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [14]scribe.perl version
    1.138 ([15]CVS log)
    $Date: 2013-12-11 17:17:57 $

     [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/


-- 
Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
Tel: +81 466 49 1170