W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > April 2014

[minutes] Web & TV IG call, 16 April 2014

From: Daniel Davis <ddavis@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:17:12 +0900
Message-ID: <534E9EF8.807@w3.org>
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:

If you were present but are not listed, please let me know.

With regards,



      [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


   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

          Andreas Tai, Giles Godart-Brown, Victor Klos




     * [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



workshop next steps



   giuseppep: The workshop was held in Munich a few weeks ago
   ... The slides for the next steps are here:
   ... Firstly, there was a presentation on a new initiative
   called GGIE by Glenn.


   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

   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

   <kaz> [12]GGIE slides


   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
   ... There was a request to understand more about what W3C is
   ... 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
   ... 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
   ... 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

   paul_higgs: Which group should we take ideas to?

   MarkVickers: I would contact the people within each working

   bryan: I gave an overview of the testing effort at the
   ... 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

   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
   ... 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
   ... 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

   giuseppep: If everyone works on their own things could fall

   <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,

   MarkVickers: In the DLNA we've referenced W3C tests for some
   ... 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

   <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

   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

   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
   ... 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
   ... 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
   ... Is now a time to go to the web performance WG with
   ... 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

     [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/

   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

   bryan: That's worthwhile talking about here.

   giuseppep: Let's see if there's enough interest to continue the

   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
   ... 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

   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
   ... 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

   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

   kaz: Maybe Daniel or I should talk with Mark Sadecki about the
   possible collaboration (maybe including his direct
   participation in the IG)?

   giuseppep: OK.



Request from DAP WG

   <inserted> [18]DAP Request


   giuseppep: They want feedback on the Network Service Discovery
   ... They want to know if the spec covers our use cases
   ... If people are interesting in implementing it and can share
   ... 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
   ... 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

   <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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:21 UTC