See also: IRC log
<raphael> +1 for accepting minutes
<davy> +1
<erik> +1
<mhausenblas> +1
<Yves> +1
raphael: minutes accpeted?
all: yes
<silvia> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html
raphael: should we change meeting
slot for Dave?
... for now lets keep it as-is
yes
<mhausenblas> Michael: volunteers to review the MA doc
<scribe> ACTION: michael to review Use Cases and Requirements for Ontology and API for Media Object 1.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-36 - Review Use Cases and Requirements for Ontology and API for Media Object 1.0 [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2009-02-04].
erik: agenda item 2, future participants
raphael: blinx will not
join.
... teleconf with dailymotion soon
michael: wolfgang is interested, could be invited expert.
<raphael> Wolfgang Jochum
raphael: mixup of wolfgangs.
michael: ah! Will ask him today
yves: no progress on google
<raphael> close ACTION-1
<trackbot> ACTION-1 Contact Google AC Rep re member of MediaFrag WG till next week closed
close action 1
close action 17
<raphael> close ACTION-17
<trackbot> ACTION-17 Find out with Philippe who from Google would be interested to join closed
erik: will do final attempt for
cisco
... also get guillaume on board again
erik: agenda item 3
raphael: template is ready, will email details
<raphael> short: media-frag-reqs
<mhausenblas> as already mentioned re ACTION-32 ... I can contribute as well to support you ... in case I've CVS access (got my CVS account set up for W3C ;)
close action 33
yves: if cvs access does not work mail me
<raphael> Discussion about the syntax
<raphael> close ACTION-25
<trackbot> ACTION-25 Describe why smpte is the only frame accurate one closed
<raphael> Jack: we need SMPTE for frame accuracy
<raphael> Dave: we only need rational numbers
<raphael> +1 with Jack for having SMPTE timecode only
silvia: rational numbers not used
often
... smpte is better
close action 25
<trackbot> ACTION-25 Describe why smpte is the only frame accurate one closed
raphael: on to action 27, units to use (pixels, cm, inch, etc)
yves: will work on it
<raphael> Results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/42785/MFRAGSYNTAXSEPARATOR/results
jack: nothing done yet on 28
<raphael> 6 for ampersand, 1 for semi-colon
erik: separators.
silvia: there is a bit of an issue with thousands separators. Let's state we do not use them.
<raphael> +1
<Yves> +1 to not using thousands separators
<Jack> +1
raphael: primary separator: 6
votes for &, one for ;
... others please vote
... reololution: primary separator is ampoersand
<raphael> RESOLVED: primary separator will be the ampersand character
<raphael> Second poll: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/42785/MFRAGSYNTAXRECTANGLE/results
erik: rects has silvia as odd-man-out
silvia: css does not use xywh. it uses trbl
raphael: in email I said we should allow trbl and xywh
RESOLUTION: primary separator will be the ampersand character
silvia: maybe do all
raphael: lets do all for the
first wd
... let the community decide
<raphael> raphael: I suggest to put in the WD the various possibilities, and let the community decide
<mhausenblas> +1
<erik> +1
+1
<davy> +1
<silvia> +1
<raphael> next poll results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/42785/MFRAGSYNTAXQUOTE/results
RESOLUTION: will do all 4 schemes for the first working draft and let the community decide
erik: next one: the quotes
<mhausenblas> just for the record, as I guess we will not be able to approach agenda item 4 today anymore
<mhausenblas> I've created an issue now for the registry stuff, see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/3
<Yves> like & -> & " -> &#XX;
silvia: double quotes are not
allowed in urls according to spec.
... will also check for &, while we're at it
erik: everybody says optional, except michael.
michael: not too strong an opinion. I'm fine with optional
RESOLUTION: quotes are optional. Single or double tbd
silvia: ampersand is allowed (unlike double quote)
<silvia> sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")"
<silvia> / "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "="
<silvia> gen-delims = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "@"
<silvia> sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")"
<silvia> / "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "="
<silvia> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt
<raphael> raphael thinks that Silvia said that double quotes are simply forbidden as per RFC3986
RESOLUTION: we use only single quotes as double are not in uri construction
<raphael> +1
<erik> +1
<silvia> +1
+1
raphael: will send wrapup of
feedback to list (
... action 22 can be closed
close action-22
<trackbot> ACTION-22 Complete the table, trying to get the answer for the current question marks, except when this is a close format closed
<raphael> discussion about ISSUE-1: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/1
silvia: summarizes mail discussion, we want scenario 3
<mhausenblas> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Jan/0061.html
jack: violently agrees with silvia
raphael: will summarize
<scribe> ACTION: raphaël to summarize clip-combining discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-37 - Summarize clip-combining discussion [on Raphaël Troncy - due 2009-02-04].
<raphael> ISSUE-2: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/2
<trackbot> ISSUE-2 What is the mime type of a media fragment? What is its relation with its parent resource? notes added
erik: on to mime types for fragments
<mhausenblas> Michael: question is blurry, for me more issues, I've created ISSUE-3 re the registry part of it
<raphael> Yves: when we create a new representation (new mime-type), we create a new resource
yves: new mime-type means new resource
<silvia> +1
michael: sounds good
+1
<davy> +1
<erik> +1
<mhausenblas> ISSUE-3: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/3
<trackbot> ISSUE-3 Does our MF URI syntax imlpy that we need to update MIME Type registrations? notes added
silvia: this goes beyond our scope
<raphael> registry is not possible since we do not own the mime types jpg, jpg2000, avi, mov, etc.
michael: but if we follow specs to the letter we must.
<silvia> http://example.com/image.jpg#trbl=2,4,4,6
michael: need to show we have addressed this issue (even if by ignoring it because we cannot fix it)
<raphael> Silvia: temporalURI had the same problem ...
<raphael> Silvia: we did that for ogg because we own the format
<raphael> scribenick: raphael
Silvia: I do not agree we have a problem here ... we have discussed that from the beginning
Michael: we have 2 different
opinions
... I think Raphael said 'we do not care'
... and I say we should care
Raphael: I said, we stick in the general framework of RFC3986, unspecified semantics
<mhausenblas> +1
Raphael: should we write a paragraph to state what we aim for ?
Michael: yes, I volunteer to do draft that
<mhausenblas> Michael: sorry for missinterpreting Raphael, ack his wording
<silvia> +1
<scribe> ACTION: Michael to draft a paragraph that will solve ISSUE-3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-mediafrag-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Draft a paragraph that will solve ISSUE-3 [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2009-02-04].
<mhausenblas> +1
<mhausenblas> Michael: notes to himself re action 4 that he needs to include the sentence 'we don't own specs, so general case applies;
<mhausenblas> [adjourned]