- From: Daniel Davis <ddavis@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:17:12 +0900
- To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Hello all,
Below are the minutes from the earlier call, also available online:
http://www.w3.org/2014/04/16-webtv-minutes.html
If you were present but are not listed, please let me know.
With regards,
Daniel
----------
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Web & TV IG meeting - TV workshop follow-up
16 Apr 2014
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2014/04/16-webtv-irc
Attendees
Present (identified attendees)
Andy_Hickman_DTVL, bgidon, Bin_Hu, bryan
(Bryan_Sullivan), CyrilRa, ddavis, elindstrom, geunhyug,
giuseppep, gmandyam, igarashi, jcdufourd, jcverdie, jon,
karen, kawada, kaz, MarkS, MarkVickers, pal, paul_higgs,
schuki, simon, skim13, wuwei, yosuke, Daniel_Wester
Present (unidentified callers)
+1.818.370.aadd, +325045aacc, +44.178.442.aaff,
[GVoice], [IPcaller], [IPcaller.a], [IPcaller.aa],
[IPcaller.aaa], [IPcaller.aaaa], ??P54, ??P56, ??P9
Regrets
Andreas Tai, Giles Godart-Brown, Victor Klos
Chair
giuseppep
Scribe
Daniel
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]workshop next steps
2. [5]Request from DAP WG
3. [6]Update from the Media API TF
* [7]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<giuseppep>
[8]https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nQGA_g6Zp1mbO75LFVEz
zHDOwxDjTjiFRas4KoF1i7M/edit#slide=id.p28
[8]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nQGA_g6Zp1mbO75LFVEzzHDOwxDjTjiFRas4KoF1i7M/edit#slide=id.p28
workshop next steps
<giuseppep>
[9]https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Agenda_and_Minutes/Agenda
_Telco_16th_April_2014
[9]
https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Agenda_and_Minutes/Agenda_Telco_16th_April_2014
giuseppep: The workshop was held in Munich a few weeks ago
... The slides for the next steps are here:
[10]https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nQGA_g6Zp1mbO75LFVE
zzHDOwxDjTjiFRas4KoF1i7M/edit#slide=id.p28
... Firstly, there was a presentation on a new initiative
called GGIE by Glenn.
[10]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nQGA_g6Zp1mbO75LFVEzzHDOwxDjTjiFRas4KoF1i7M/edit#slide=id.p28
giuseppep: There was a discussion on use cases and requirements
which we also do at W3C.
... I don't we have much next to do with regards to GGIE.
Glenn: The group is meeting in a couple of weeks to discuss the
charter and then we can come back to W3C to see if there's any
overlap.
paul: Is GGIE a W3C activity?
Glenn: No, it supports other standards bodies including W3C,
IETF, etc.
... We're not sure yet where are "home" would be.
giuseppep: The slides are linked from the workshop agenda:
[11]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/tv-workshop/agenda.html
[11] http://www.w3.org/2013/10/tv-workshop/agenda.html
<kaz> [12]GGIE slides
[12]
http://www.w3.org/2013/10/tv-workshop/slides/Session8_GGIE-W3C-web&tv-March-2014.pptx
giuseppep: Next is synchronization of media and metadata.
... Many of these things are spread across existing specs
... There isn't any significant activity we can do, but the IG
mailing list can be used to raise awareness of issues that
could be reported as bugs.
... Do people agree?
<jcverdie> +1
Jean-pierre: I don't remember having such a deep discussion
about metadata.
giuseppep: This is more about integration of existing specs and
HTML5 spec.
... Do you remember something different?
... I'll mail a link to the slides I'm sharing.
N.b. GGIE is "The Glass to Glass Internet Ecosystem"
giuseppep: If we agree on the conclusion, I'm moving to slide
#4 - testing.
... Note that the slides are not automatic - you have to click
on each slide.
... There was a discussion about testing which is very
important.
... There was a request to understand more about what W3C is
doing.
... There's a need for more test cases.
... Also, a discussion about what testing actually means.
... Different people may have different goals.
... If resources/tests are out there, do they match testing
requirements?
... What possibility is to use the IG or some other group to
get a better idea of what's out there
... And maybe have a Test The Web Forward event for TV.
... The conclusion was the IG could facilitate a conversation.
... There is already a working group and interest group.
... Any comments so far?
paul_higgs: We used to have a Testing Task Force within this
IG. It produced analysis of what is needed for TV testing.
... A lot of effort was put in - where did it go?
giuseppep: Since the activity of developing steps actually got
stopped, there was no progress.
MarkVickers: There was a lot of effort around testing. There
was a set of requirements that we published.
... What it said was we need a centralised placed for tests and
have them run in a consistent way.
... Some of that work has been done. We have centralised tests.
MarkVickers: The big challenge was getting better coverage of
tests and for that, W3C built a detailed test plan.
... This required possibly more staff, definitely more funding
but W3C didn't receive any money.
... There is still effort going on and contributions by browser
vendors. There is a backlog of tests and a requirement for test
reviews.
... So there's the opportunity for people to contribute tests
and reviews, or funding for testing.
... The depth of coverage is going to take a lot longer to
improve.
paul_higgs: Which group should we take ideas to?
MarkVickers: I would contact the people within each working
group
bryan: I gave an overview of the testing effort at the
workshop.
... The testing IG is not going to do anything for you, and
probably not the WGs either.
... This TV IG needs to focus much more specifically about
what's needed for certain test cases.
... Just saying fill the gaps is not enough to make headway.
... This TV IG needs someone to focus the work and contribute
resources to do that.
... I suggest you take a look at your existing HTML5 STB - map
the features to web technologies, e.g. CSS opacity, etc.
... Define which features are used and decide which tests are
needed.
giuseppep: What's missing is where the tests are and tools are?
bryan: The community has to serve itself. I said we should do
this on the wiki.
... We should detail how to do this for ourselves.
... We have to jump in - the people who know how to run tests
have to lead the others. No-one else will do it for you.
paul_higgs: We need to be in charge of our own destiny.
... We should collect the tests for the TV environment.
MarkVickers: I strongly disagree with this. The old testing
group was closed down but there is a new one and a structure
for submitting tests.
<bryan> what is the active group, mark?
MarkVickers: If you want to submit tests, there is a process
and existing group to do that.
... I don't think we should collect our own group of tests.
... There's a good test plan and what's missing is people to do
the tests.
paul_higgs: I think we agree but we're saying it differently.
bryan: There's no W3C group any more, it's hidden behind
GitHub.
... Right now there is no focussed effort.
... Somebody has to coordinate and organise the effort.
giuseppep: People want to contribute test cases but they want
to know where they go. And they want to know what tools are
there.
... The requirement is there.
... There is a need for someone to drive this.
... As it stands it's a bit confusing.
... How to move forward on this?
... Maybe Clarke would be willing?
MarkVickers: Are you talking about getting a task force going
again?
giuseppep: If everyone works on their own things could fall
apart.
<bryan> the only mechanism of communicating with the "group" is
the test-infra mailing list, and following the discussions on
github (pull requests, bugs etc)
giuseppep: I.e. if we just provide people links.
bryan: I agree we should start with links.
... We have to identify what tests are there.
... Right now there is no guidance.
giuseppep: Please could one of you send an email to the list
summarising these points?
... Maybe in the next call we could cover this.
bryan: I said we could do something to help fill this gap.
... Help to explain how to get engaged and what to focus on.
<darobin> may I suggest you email public-test-infra with
questions, comments, and grievances?
giuseppep: In two weeks time we'll review it.
andy: There's a view that if you've got a lot of money and
engineers, all the problems would be solved.
<darobin> public-test-infra is there to help and is very
helpful (also #testing)
andy: But I don't believe that's the case.
<darobin> I strongly suggest that any work on testing in WebTV
be coordinated there, it will avoid confusion, duplication,
mistakes, etc.
andy: I don't think you'd end up with something that HbbTV or
IPTV Forum Japan could use. There's no way to handle test IDs,
test waivers and certification.
... Some of the basic infrastructure is not there and I can't
see it happening.
<bryan> robin, people don't know about those tools of
communication - we can start by letting them know. but what
this group needs most is to decide what features are important
and to put resources onto those tests, reviewing, developing,
whatever
MarkVickers: In the DLNA we've referenced W3C tests for some
time.
... It's not a testing organisation so you're not going to get
full infrastructure such as waivers. The referencing groups
should do that.
<darobin> bryan: I think you'd be more successful deciding what
to do by interacting with public-test-infra right away
<darobin> giuseppep: no, but if it's really useful I can kill
this other thing I'm doing in parallel
<bryan> robin, I will do that
MarkVickers: W3C is a place where the tests should be reviewed
and seen to be technically correct, and hold a repository of
the tests.
andy: I agree with that, but what I would hope is that the
infrastructure has some support in other organisations.
... E.g. they need unique IDs and version numbers.
<jon> The speaker is Andy Hickman from DTVL.
bryan: HbbTV has an exacting requirement for tests.
... That level of mapping, etc. does not exist in W3C.
... That needs to exist to make it happen.
andy: It's hard for third parties to reference in a robust way.
giuseppep: So it's not an issue of contribution but of how they
are maintained.
<bryan> the problem is that W3C tests has been developed in an
adhoc way with little specific guidelines or consistency on
metadata, linking to spec/test assertions, etc. that is one of
the key gaps for utility in certification programs. this was a
comment I made at the workshop.
giuseppep: (scribe missed that)
<darobin> bryan: that is not true, they are largely consistent
— metadata is simply considered to be of lesser importance, and
something that can easily be provided externally
<bryan> it was also one of the goals for the Web Testing IG
that have so far not been realized - how to change the process
of test documentation and development to obtain more rigor.
giuseppep: Next step - Bryan will send out information then
I'll try to summarise the issues that have been raised.
andy: Do you know what the next step is?
giuseppep: My understanding was that if there was no clear
direction then it's not worth taking this to the testing group.
<bryan> robin, OK I agree that if metadata needs to be provided
externally, that is a solution if the underlying tests are
structured in at least a stable, granular way. This group can
provide that "external" augmentation. That's the "focus" I am
talking about.
giuseppep: My proposal would be to not rush anything until we
see that there are good tools out there that could be used.
<darobin> bryan, that's certainly something we can handle
darobin: Robin here. I work for W3C managing publication of
HTML spec and help with testing effort.
... It would be useful if any discussion of testing could be
coordinated with public-test-infra mailing list.
... There's been a lot of hearsay and misunderstanding.
... The testing list is friendly and helpful.
<MarkVickers> public-test-infra@w3.org
darobin: Things are moving fast in terms of infrastructure,
resources, and documentation.
<bryan> internally, we are starting here... how to build test
runner scripts based upon the existing tests in the repository,
that execute the tests we are more interested in - that's one
of the basic metadata items - what set of tests do you want to
run. Then when we have found gaps, reviewing/developing the
tests for them.
darobin: Don't hesitate to ask someone from the testing group
to join in your discussion.
<kaz> [13]testing infra email archive
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-test-infra/
giuseppep: When you send that mail, Bryan, please include the
testing mailing list.
bryan: Will do. Sorry if it seems I don't appreciate the effort
- I do but I think it's better if we work as a test.
<MarkVickers> I encourage anyone to take any questions to
public-test-infra@w3.org
<darobin> +1 to working as a team, hence the suggestion to
discuss with the testing team :)
giuseppep: Next is rendering of linear video, aka Tuner API
... We discussed this previously with Bin leading the
discussion
Bin_Hu: We discussed the need to take action quickly if we want
a Community Group
... There are lots of people interested - strong interest in
driving this forward.
... We need five supporters. Last week we had a role call and
got more than five supporters.
... As a result, this will be moving forward but still no
volunteer to drive the effort.
... As a next step I'm thinking maybe we can help start off the
work and see how the group proceeds.
... There are other groups that have similar technologies so we
can see how those specifications can contribute to our efforts.
giuseppep: So we're still missing someone to lead the group.
Bin_Hu: We have jcverdie happy to co-chair
jcverdie: I'd be happy to do it with Bin.
Bin_Hu: OK.
jcverdie: Great.
giuseppep: So the people who expressed an interest can propose
the group.
... We have provided a lot of use cases in the past year so
it's a case of deciding which one to use for the group, based
on existing specs and requirements.
... So the Community Group will be independent of the IG and
also open to anyone, not just W3C members.
... Once it's created let's announce it on the IG and maybe the
CG chairs could report to the IG every month, for example.
<kaz> [14]Community Groups page
[14] http://www.w3.org/community/
Bin_Hu: I think that's important because of the heritage of the
CG.
giuseppep: Any other comments?
<jcverdie> +1 to reporting progress to IG obviously
giuseppep: Next is slide #6 - mostly regarding bugs around
video element.
... The IG should maybe get some feedback, maybe comment on the
bugs.
... Do people feel our involvement would be useful?
... At present we don't have task forces, just one IG call
every two weeks.
... The agenda for each call is open so if there's a specific
spec that could benefit from being presented to the group,
that's fine.
MarkVickers: I like a single call and having the content
decided as needed.
paul_higgs: I think I heard you say we could discuss the bugs
on the call. But how should SDOs report bugs?
giuseppep: Bugs should be reported to the WGs, e.g., HTML WG
... If there's a problem with a spec, report it to the spec on
Bugzilla - [15]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/
... If there's a problem then raise it with this IG.
... Slide #7
... Communication between two UAs
... We discussed whether there's anything more the IG can be
doing.
... The answer was no, because there are already groups doing
this work.
... See slide #7, and if you're not sure how to join in, ask
the list.
... Next is #8 - performance measurement.
... There was a discussion about what's needed and what W3C can
do.
... Is now a time to go to the web performance WG with
requirements?
... If so, there's a need for people to drive this discussion.
... Is there anyone on the call that feels this is important
enough to drive forward?
... Is this related to the testing activity or outside that
scope?
[15] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/
bryan: Performance measurement and benchmarks is always a
tricky area. So far it's outside W3C's area.
... Functional tests are the main focus.
MarkVickers: There's a performance WG, right?
giuseppep: Yes, but they focus on performance specs.
... If someone wants to discuss this, we're open.
<MarkVickers> Web Performance Working Group:
[16]http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/
[16] http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/
bryan: If it's just discussing common ideas, that's OK, but
don't build your hopes up with benchmarks.
giuseppep: I think you need APIs for browsers to measure
performance.
bryan: That's worthwhile talking about here.
giuseppep: Let's see if there's enough interest to continue the
discussion.
yosuke: What we've learned (from HybridCast) is performance is
still really important for actual production.
<bryan> I think experience with the video API will help
identify that performance data gaps exist - testing may also
uncover gaps in what people were expecting the API to provide,
and that can drive bugs.
yosuke: If no-one's willing to kick off the discussion, I'd be
happy to.
giuseppep: It would be helpful to send a mail to the list and
if there's interest it can be followed up in the next call.
... If you can compile a list, e.g. of HybridCast issues, that
would help start the discussion.
... Slide #9 - there was a discussion about accessibility.
... There's more than just subtitles and captioning. We didn't
really go into details, just continue in the IG if there are
enough contributors.
... If you're interested, send a mail to the list and we can
discuss it on the call.
Pierre: I saw a number of issues filed by Jon Piesing for HTML,
e.g. caption/subtitle selection.
... Have they been addressed or resolved?
Jon: They are being addressed, slowly.
Pierre: Do you feel there's more that could be done?
Jon: It feels like it's purely a discussion between Silvia
Pfeiffer and myself.
... It's hard to know what other people think of the
discussion.
... You can assume that silence is consent, but the lack of
people makes me nervous.
Pierre: Do you have a record of all the issues that are
relevant to this group?
Jon: I can send something to Giuseppe who can forward to the
list. There'll be more to come.
Pierre: Feel free to send it directly to me as well.
<MarkVickers> I believe anyone can send to the public list.
<kaz> right
giuseppep: It's OK to send a mail to the group asking for other
people to comment.
Pierre: Jon, I'm looking forward to that and helping if I can.
MarkVickers: It is a pattern for these things that one of the
editors will lead the discussion. In this case it's Silvia as
she's an HTML editor.
... The bugs you reported were well written. I agree it's not a
fast process but when it gets done it gets adopted by all the
browsers.
Pierre: Now that HTML is taking over video content, that video
content comes from places outside the browser.
... I'm sure many of us in the TV industry have experience we
can contribute.
MarkVickers: I agree. The HTML spec a few years ago was very
basic for video and this IG has contributed a lot. Also,
individuals from this group have gone on to work on specs
directly.
... Web browser experts are not necessarily media experts so
they need us to chime in on these issues. Our role will
continue to be important.
giuseppep: Slide #10 - Pluggable CDM for EME
... Jan is not on the call. I didn't feel there was anything
that could be done within the IG.
... It's something that could be mentioned in the HTML WG Media
Task Force.
MarkVickers: In general, the W3C specs just cover the interface
between the application and the browser.
... The W3C takes the position that specs don't touch the
plugin or anything above the browser interface.
... The W3C in this area hasn't taken on any work defining CDMs
or plugins.
<bryan> sorry, gotta drop - late for WebMob
MarkVickers: The question of whether there's a plugin API that
would work cross-browser is still an open issues.
... You could raise it in the HTML WG Media TF and see the
response.
giuseppep: So if Jan and the people who raised the issue are
not here I'll leave it but they can raise it in the IG if they
want to.
... That's all I have for the workshop next steps. Anything I
forgot?
kaz: Maybe Daniel or I should talk with Mark Sadecki about the
possible collaboration (maybe including his direct
participation in the IG)?
giuseppep: OK.
<giuseppep>
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2014A
pr/0025.html
[17]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2014Apr/0025.html
Request from DAP WG
<inserted> [18]DAP Request
[18]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2014Apr/0025.html
giuseppep: They want feedback on the Network Service Discovery
API
... They want to know if the spec covers our use cases
... If people are interesting in implementing it and can share
plans.
... And if there are additional requirements, such as if
there's no support for legacy devices will they still implement
it/not implement it?
... As an IG we can't answer this but we can send a mail to get
responses.
... So I'll follow up and draft an email, sending it to our
liaison contacts.
Bin_Hu: Based on the email that they sent to everybody, looks
like if there are no further implementations then their work
will be shelved.
... It's a good time to speak up if you're interested in it or
in implementing it.
paul_higgs: What do you mean by implementing it?
... TV manufacturers are interested in it but it's implemented
in the browser, so it's up to browser vendors.
giuseppep: It's not limited to the browser vendors.
... Forks of WebKit would still count as implementations.
Also, it's up to TV manufacturers to request requirements as
customers of browser vendors.
Update from the Media API TF
giuseppep: Is there a volunteer to answer requests for an
update on the status of the group?
MarkVickers: I can draft an email.
giuseppep: So let's close the call there.
... Anything else?
... Next call in two weeks then and I'll send a summary to the
IG.
<jcverdie> thanks giuseppep
<jcverdie> bye all
kaz: Next call will be a normal TV IG call, right?
giuseppep: Yes, and sorry I got the timezones wrong.
giuseppep: If you want an invite, please let me know and I'll
send you one.
... Goodbye everyone.
Meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 15:18:21 UTC