IRC log of mediafrag on 2009-09-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:01:01 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #mediafrag
08:01:01 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-irc
08:01:03 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
08:01:03 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #mediafrag
08:01:05 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be IA_MFWG
08:01:05 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see IA_MFWG(F2F)4:00AM scheduled to start now
08:01:06 [trackbot]
Meeting: Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
08:01:06 [trackbot]
Date: 17 September 2009
08:01:18 [raphael]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/FourthF2FAgenda
08:01:40 [raphael]
Meeting: Media Fragments Working Group 4th F2F Meeting (Virtual)
08:01:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
08:02:00 [raphael]
Chair: Erik, Raphael
08:03:00 [Zakim]
IA_MFWG(F2F)4:00AM has now started
08:03:07 [Zakim]
+ +0329331aaaa
08:03:15 [davy]
davy has joined #mediafrag
08:03:45 [Zakim]
+mhausenblas
08:04:15 [Zakim]
+ +61.2.801.2.aabb
08:04:21 [Zakim]
+raphael
08:04:51 [erik]
erik has joined #mediafrag
08:04:56 [silvia]
Zakim, aabb is silvia
08:04:56 [Zakim]
+silvia; got it
08:04:56 [raphael]
zakim, aaaa is erik
08:04:57 [Zakim]
+erik; got it
08:05:09 [raphael]
zakim, who is here?
08:05:09 [Zakim]
On the phone I see erik, mhausenblas, silvia, raphael
08:05:10 [Zakim]
On IRC I see erik, davy, Zakim, RRSAgent, jackjansen, raphael, mhausenblas, silvia, trackbot, Yves
08:05:19 [franck]
franck has joined #mediafrag
08:05:45 [Zakim]
+Yves
08:08:02 [raphael]
Present: Davy, Erik, Michael, Raphael, Yves, Silvia, Franck (irc), Jack (irc)
08:08:06 [Gui]
Gui has joined #mediafrag
08:08:31 [raphael]
Topic: Specification discussion
08:09:02 [conrad]
conrad has joined #mediafrag
08:10:32 [raphael]
Erik: let's discuss first the aspect ratio issue
08:10:37 [raphael]
Scribe: raphael
08:10:41 [raphael]
Scribenick: raphael
08:10:41 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
08:10:41 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
08:11:01 [raphael]
Davy: in my opinion, the aspect is just another representation of the video, this is not a part of the video
08:11:06 [Zakim]
+ +2712841aacc
08:11:14 [raphael]
zakim, ack Yves
08:11:14 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
08:11:33 [Gui]
zakim, aacc is Gui
08:11:33 [Zakim]
+Gui; got it
08:11:40 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
08:11:40 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
08:11:42 [raphael]
Yves: I barely agree with the fact that aspect is a different thing, but from the processing point of view, this is also something that requires transcoding
08:11:58 [raphael]
... I'm happy to remove this use case if people are not comfortable with it
08:12:24 [raphael]
zakim, aacc is Gui
08:12:24 [Zakim]
sorry, raphael, I do not recognize a party named 'aacc'
08:12:33 [raphael]
zakim, ack Gui
08:12:33 [Zakim]
I see silvia on the speaker queue
08:12:49 [Gui]
zakim, mute me
08:12:49 [Zakim]
Gui should now be muted
08:12:58 [raphael]
zakim, ack Silvia
08:12:58 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
08:13:46 [tmichel]
tmichel has joined #mediafrag
08:13:53 [raphael]
Silvia: I just respond to Yves, this is the server who does the clipping, but I think that in the case of the ratio, the server should do nothing ... this is up to the client to add the black parts
08:14:09 [franck]
franck has joined #mediafrag
08:14:12 [Gui]
zakim, unmute me
08:14:12 [Zakim]
Gui should no longer be muted
08:14:13 [raphael]
... so I see no reason for a use case, this is a presentation issue and not a fragment issue
08:14:27 [franck]
hi all, will try to make the call (romm issue!)
08:14:35 [Gui]
zakim, mute me
08:14:35 [Zakim]
Gui should now be muted
08:14:46 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
08:14:46 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
08:15:04 [raphael]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: take the aspect feature out of the spec and of our requirements
08:15:13 [davy]
+1
08:15:15 [erik]
+1
08:15:15 [Zakim]
+tmichel
08:15:16 [raphael]
+1
08:15:20 [Gui]
+1
08:15:23 [jackjansen]
+1
08:15:25 [conrad]
+1
08:15:33 [Gui]
zakim, unmute me
08:15:33 [Zakim]
Gui should no longer be muted
08:15:39 [mhausenblas]
+1 (and explain why in the doc)
08:16:00 [silvia]
apect ratio changes between what the server can provide and what the client wants to present are a presentation issue; one could either clip the video or add black bars; this should be up to the client to decide, not the server
08:16:01 [silvia]
+1
08:16:25 [raphael]
RESOLUTION: we agree that aspect ratio is not a fragment and will not be something that we can address with a Media Fragment URI
08:17:01 [raphael]
ACTION: Erik and Davy to write a paragraph in the documents to explain why we don't include this feature in the spec (rationale) based on the group analysis
08:17:02 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-109 - And Davy to write a paragraph in the documents to explain why we don't include this feature in the spec (rationale) based on the group analysis [on Erik Mannens - due 2009-09-24].
08:17:05 [Gui]
zakim, mute me
08:17:05 [Zakim]
Gui should now be muted
08:17:18 [Zakim]
+shadi
08:18:44 [raphael]
Now, let's discuss the role of the ? vs #
08:18:49 [raphael]
Silvia summary: http://blog.gingertech.net/2009/09/08/uri-fragments-vs-uri-queries-for-media-fragment-addressing/
08:18:54 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
08:18:54 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
08:19:48 [raphael]
Silvia: I look at what Yves suggested, query and fragment are different depending on the need of trascoding or not
08:19:56 [conrad]
Zakim, mute me
08:19:56 [Zakim]
sorry, conrad, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
08:20:04 [raphael]
... fragments, as it is defined currently, is something that needs to be resolved locally by the UA
08:20:14 [raphael]
zakim, shadi is conrad
08:20:14 [Zakim]
+conrad; got it
08:20:21 [conrad]
Zakim, mute me
08:20:21 [Zakim]
conrad should now be muted
08:21:33 [raphael]
Silvia: any comments ?
08:22:05 [raphael]
Michael: if we have transcoding, then URI queries should be used?
08:22:08 [raphael]
q+
08:22:09 [Gui]
I agree on differentiation # for client nav ? for server transcoding
08:22:47 [raphael]
Silvia: yes to Michael question
08:23:19 [raphael]
Michael: my only concern is the extra complexity introduced for the implementors
08:23:56 [raphael]
Silvia: we are looking at various dimensions, we are pretty sure that for the temporal dimension, there will be often no transcoding required for most of the formats
08:23:59 [raphael]
... so no problem
08:24:10 [raphael]
... the problem will happen for the spatial dimension
08:24:42 [raphael]
... where are not sure yet, when transcoding will be required ? always ?
08:25:28 [raphael]
... I think therefore it is necessary to have solution for both cases when we need transcoding and we don't need
08:25:35 [raphael]
Conrad: with /query/ we can always go back to the server, with fragments the UA has to do something
08:25:58 [raphael]
Yves: conrad yes or no, yes if it receive the whole thing back, no if the server just send what's needed
08:26:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
08:26:57 [raphael]
Present+ Conrad
08:27:28 [raphael]
Silvia: look at the example I post today, everytime you click, it refresh the pages, this is very painful ...
08:27:32 [raphael]
... this is what we want to change
08:27:41 [Gui]
saw that. The clickthrough in the youtube example uses 2 separate videos that interlink each others
08:28:13 [davy]
q+
08:28:17 [raphael]
No Gui, see that http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0087.html
08:29:43 [raphael]
zakim, ack me
08:29:43 [Zakim]
I see davy on the speaker queue
08:30:29 [mhausenblas]
Michael: I follow silvia's argumentation, though, for the sake of a simple standard I'd opt for # only
08:31:09 [Gui]
Raphael, yes, that's the one I'm referring to. According to what I read, there were two similar looking videos involved to provide the linking effect for time offsetting.
08:32:18 [raphael]
Raphael: my concern is then what will happen with the spatial dimension ... since it requires transcoding most of the time
08:32:55 [raphael]
Yves: the whole document will be served
08:33:08 [raphael]
... since the server cannot satisfy the range request
08:33:13 [raphael]
Silvia: I agree
08:33:42 [FD]
FD has joined #mediafrag
08:33:56 [davy]
what about JPEG2000?
08:34:38 [raphael]
Raphael: I have the feeling then that we are specifying a feature, #xhwh=100,100,400,400 that will never been satisfiable !
08:34:48 [Zakim]
+ +aadd
08:34:54 [raphael]
Davy argues that JPEG2000 might do it?
08:35:12 [raphael]
Silvia: in the future, some codecs can do it ...
08:35:25 [raphael]
zakim, ack davy
08:35:25 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
08:35:37 [Yves]
normal jpg can do this with block elvel as well, no?
08:35:43 [raphael]
zakim, aadd is FD
08:35:43 [Zakim]
+FD; got it
08:36:08 [raphael]
Silvia: I think this is not a new issue that comes up, we have discussed that a long time ago ...
08:36:18 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
08:36:18 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
08:37:57 [raphael]
Raphael: we will need to document that, and particularly add many test cases, when the server needs to transcode to satisfy the range request
08:38:26 [silvia]
I think what we have to do in our standard is to provide means for any kind of resource to allow creation of a media fragment URI that can request access to a fragment; some will be able to satisfy it from the local resource, others only with transcoding; thus we need to specify our addressing scheme for both possiblities: ? and #
08:38:29 [raphael]
Yves: this is not an out of range case
08:38:38 [raphael]
... this is something that is forbidden
08:38:46 [davy]
+1 to Silvia
08:39:17 [raphael]
Yves: 416 is only used when it is possible to do a range request, but you have a out of bond case
08:39:26 [Gui]
I agree with Silvia : "? AND #"
08:39:27 [raphael]
... here, we have something that cannot be applied
08:40:09 [raphael]
Yves: in the case of transcoding, the server will then must serve the whole content with a 200
08:40:10 [conrad]
I also agree that we need to define both ? and #
08:40:46 [erik]
rrsagent, draft minutes
08:40:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-minutes.html erik
08:40:55 [raphael]
Yves: so the server needs to identify whether transcoding is necessary or not, and then rely on the default HTTP rules
08:40:59 [erik]
+1 to Silvia too
08:41:12 [jackjansen]
+1 to Silvia
08:41:40 [Gui]
? and # 1. Gives more control to the user 2. Makes our syntax specification usable by current server side implementations
08:41:41 [raphael]
+1 to silvia
08:42:22 [raphael]
Michael: I hesitate to make a big +1, because of the complexity
08:42:55 [raphael]
... but I can live with it ... I would prefer to care about # now, and work on ? later on
08:43:15 [raphael]
Davy: from an implementation point of view, I think the server has not a lot of extra work
08:43:35 [raphael]
... the query thing comes almost for free when you implement the hash
08:43:45 [raphael]
Michael: I'm thinking on both the UA and the server sides
08:44:05 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
08:44:05 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
08:44:09 [raphael]
... principle thing, the more options you have, the more test cases and things to think about
08:44:35 [raphael]
... but I understand the need and the arguments from the others
08:44:51 [raphael]
Silvia: I think you're totally right, we don't want to add complexity we don't need
08:45:24 [raphael]
... focus is on the hash, I see the ? as an optimization ... the communication aspect is already here anyways
08:45:29 [raphael]
s/anyways/anyway
08:46:08 [raphael]
Silvia: for query, we need to specify nothing almost, this is already handled
08:46:34 [raphael]
... in fact, we only specify the communication for the #, so to some extent you're ight
08:46:49 [raphael]
... we are saying that the URI syntax can also be used for ?
08:47:13 [raphael]
Michael: we are requiring that both are normative ? this is MUST or a SHOULD ?
08:47:32 [raphael]
Silvia: the specification of a URL does not say anything about the implementation
08:47:53 [raphael]
... we open the possibility to create URL in a standard format
08:48:39 [raphael]
... correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we specify just the syntax of the URL and the way we should parse it
08:48:50 [raphael]
Silvia: the hash resolution part must be normative
08:49:03 [conrad]
an implementation that claims to support # must do it this way
08:49:07 [conrad]
an implementation that claims to support ? must do it that way
08:49:14 [Gui]
? and # - 3. Also precise if the user wants data in or out of context ?
08:49:15 [raphael]
... for the query, we could suggest to use the same way
08:49:56 [raphael]
Michael: if this is not normative, does that have an incident on interoperability
08:50:04 [raphael]
... are we after a MUST or a SHOULD?
08:50:10 [conrad]
i suggest that an implementation must state what it claims to support (eg. through http headers, uri parameters or whatever) -- and if it makes that claim, it must do it as described
08:50:43 [silvia]
+1
08:50:43 [raphael]
Michael: in the case of ?, I think the MUST is a strong constraint
08:50:51 [conrad]
whereas if it doesn't make that claim (eg. all existing urls) then this standard does not apply
08:50:57 [raphael]
Raphael: I'm well aware of the terminology
08:52:36 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
08:52:36 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
08:52:48 [conrad]
we specify a MUST on the method of advertising that this standard applies to this URL
08:53:36 [silvia]
as conrad says: if I claim conformance, I must follow the protocol - otherwise the communication cannot be resolved
08:53:59 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
08:53:59 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
08:54:02 [conrad]
we need to specify how conformance is claimed
08:54:33 [raphael]
Michael: am I the only one who doesn't really get what will be specified normatively in the case of the ?
08:55:06 [raphael]
Silvia: are you talking about the communication between the UA and the server ?
08:55:12 [FD]
when using query '?' you may have to specify the communication to get context info (Link header for example)
08:55:41 [raphael]
Raphael: oups, you're right Frank, thanks for the heads up :-)
08:56:45 [raphael]
Frank: I just wanted to remember the point of using the link header in the response of the server ... so the UA gets the context of the parent resource
08:57:10 [mhausenblas]
Frank, can you please be more specific? Are you referring to LRDD?
08:57:16 [raphael]
Silvia: are you suggesting we write a MAY use instead of a MUST use?
08:57:22 [Gui]
Is the difference between ? and # introduce a difference between secondary resource and a derived resource?
08:57:57 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
08:57:57 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
08:58:28 [raphael]
Frank: I have no precise idea of how the link header semantics should be used
08:58:50 [mhausenblas]
I agree with Frank. Context should be done via LRDD (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hammer-discovery-03)
08:58:58 [raphael]
... but the communication between the server and the UA must be alterated because of the addition of the link header
09:00:17 [raphael]
Yves: for me, the link header should always be used in the query case
09:00:22 [raphael]
... we could mandate that
09:00:42 [raphael]
... I don't think there is a current property / value for that already, we might look for it
09:00:47 [raphael]
... invent a part-of ?
09:00:53 [conrad]
i think the link header is useful, but should not be MUST
09:01:00 [raphael]
... perhaps there is already something already
09:01:29 [raphael]
Michael: LRDD specifies only [to complete]
09:02:04 [raphael]
Yves: we may have a separate RFC for that ...
09:02:17 [raphael]
Michael: problem of timeline, it will be ready on time ?
09:02:31 [silvia]
I agree with conrad - if the resource has all the information about the offsetting etc inside it, it doesn't need to be accompanied by parent information
09:02:35 [raphael]
Yves: I don't exactly when the RFC will be ready ... but I believe the time frame is correct
09:03:00 [conrad]
Zakim, unmute me
09:03:00 [Zakim]
conrad should no longer be muted
09:03:13 [Yves]
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-06.txt
09:03:32 [Yves]
http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-07.txt
09:03:41 [raphael]
Conrad: I think the header is useful, but why mandating to send the whole context ?
09:03:55 [mhausenblas]
s/LRDD specifies only [to complete]/LRDD specifies the semantics for relating a resource and its description via describedBy for three cases (link element, Link: header, and well-known location)
09:03:58 [silvia]
+1 with conrad
09:04:03 [FD]
Agree with Conrad, required mainly for display/clipping
09:04:28 [conrad]
Zakim, mute me
09:04:28 [Zakim]
conrad should now be muted
09:05:14 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:05:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-minutes.html mhausenblas
09:05:42 [raphael]
Raphael: time to summarize ... who wants to give it a try?
09:05:46 [raphael]
[silence]
09:05:51 [conrad]
isn't the summary that both are useful in different situations?
09:05:51 [raphael]
[dead silence]
09:05:53 [silvia]
resolution draft: we agree that there is a need for allowing both a ? and a # specification for media fragments
09:06:42 [silvia]
we further agree that our main focus is #, but that the communication that we define between client and server will be adapted also to the ? case
09:07:00 [raphael]
Michael: I still have a question
09:07:22 [raphael]
... what's happen when there is both ? there is a hierarchy, query first and then fragment
09:07:28 [silvia]
such that for media fragment URIs that cannot be resolved with # because it needs transcoding, ? can be used
09:07:47 [raphael]
... what's happen when: ?t=10,30#15
09:07:47 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:07:47 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:08:11 [conrad]
the ? defines a URL, the # is a relative offset
09:08:25 [raphael]
Silvia: I think this is obvious to what happens ...
09:08:42 [raphael]
... the query generates a new resource, and the fragment is a new relative offset to this new resource
09:08:57 [raphael]
... in raphael's case, it will start at 25s
09:09:03 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:09:03 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:09:05 [raphael]
+1
09:09:13 [Gui]
+1 that makes sense
09:09:36 [silvia]
since a URI with a ? part creates a new resource, we have to do the fragment offset on the new resource, which in this case means it will start at 25s
09:09:56 [mhausenblas]
+1 to the proposal. I'm fine with silvia's explanation
09:12:01 [Zakim]
-Yves
09:12:50 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:12:50 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:13:04 [raphael]
Raphael: our starting point is http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#fragment-query
09:13:49 [raphael]
Silvia: does someone have any issue in my blog post?
09:14:55 [raphael]
... if not, then we can give an action to someone to draft a good exaplanation based on my post and this discussion on irc
09:15:15 [raphael]
Michael: wondering if there is a type in silvia's example at http://blog.gingertech.net/2009/09/08/uri-fragments-vs-uri-queries-for-media-fragment-addressing/
09:15:22 [raphael]
... Range: seconds=20- and then Content-Range: seconds 11.85-21.16/3600
09:15:27 [raphael]
... shouldn't this be seconds=12- ...?
09:15:41 [raphael]
Silvia: no, the server works in a best effort
09:15:48 [raphael]
... I am trying to explain that content may not be able to be resolved to the required resolution depending on the codec
09:16:01 [raphael]
... this is an example of what a server might only be able to do ...
09:16:36 [raphael]
... as a server, you ask for a time range, but I can only serve you that, and then the UA needs to throw away what's in extra
09:16:58 [raphael]
... no way of doing that differently, since the UA will not be able to decode it otherwise
09:17:15 [conrad]
the client requests t=20, the previous keyframe is t=12 so the server sends from there
09:17:48 [raphael]
Raphael; this 8s is odd :-) there are more I-Frames in the middle :-)
09:17:57 [raphael]
Michael: I'm just suggestion there is a type
09:18:01 [raphael]
s/type/typo
09:18:13 [raphael]
s/suggestion/suggesting
09:18:26 [conrad]
ignore my keyframe explanation here :)
09:18:31 [davy]
check apple movie trailers: very few I Frames ...
09:19:39 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:19:39 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:19:40 [raphael]
Silvia: the remaining of the post talks about the headers, but this is for next half of the meeting
09:19:41 [erik]
one thing at the time
09:20:43 [raphael]
Michael: my guess is that Silvia is the best volunteer to draft the summary
09:21:00 [silvia]
ok :)
09:21:28 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:21:28 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:21:42 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:21:42 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:22:33 [conrad]
zakim unmute me
09:22:35 [raphael]
ACTION: Silvia to draft a summary starting from her blog post and these IRC minutes in the document
09:22:35 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-110 - Draft a summary starting from her blog post and these IRC minutes in the document [on Silvia Pfeiffer - due 2009-09-24].
09:22:45 [raphael]
Topic: 2. Protocol discussion
09:22:50 [mhausenblas]
ACTION-69?
09:22:50 [trackbot]
ACTION-69 -- Conrad Parker to draw a representation of the general structure of a media resource, for streamable formats (H/H' + K + D1 + D2 + D3) -- due 2009-04-24 -- OPEN
09:22:50 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/69
09:22:56 [conrad]
Zakim, unmute me
09:22:56 [Zakim]
conrad should no longer be muted
09:23:06 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:23:06 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:23:40 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:23:40 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:23:48 [raphael]
Conrad: I wanted to describe how ogg files are structured
09:24:22 [raphael]
... and if one is a sub part of another, then which parts changed or not
09:24:48 [conrad]
if you have an original file H D1 D2 D3
09:24:56 [raphael]
Raphael: is this drawing available somewhere ?
09:25:00 [conrad]
and you make a subview that goes H' D2 D3
09:25:15 [mhausenblas]
raphael - no, it is not available, hence my comment
09:25:33 [mhausenblas]
Michael: I think conrad needs to draw it (even just with pencil and scan it in - and we postpone it to tomorrow ...)
09:25:42 [conrad]
with keyframes, you might end up with something like H' D2' D3
09:26:07 [silvia]
I'd also like to point out that different containers/codecs work differently and have different challenges
09:26:42 [raphael]
Conrad: I will draw it tonight, postpone the visualization tomorrow morning
09:27:33 [raphael]
Raphael: two more things to discuss, headers and range syntax
09:27:50 [conrad]
Zakim, mute me
09:27:50 [Zakim]
conrad should now be muted
09:28:14 [raphael]
Raphael: should we start with the Range syntax ?
09:28:18 [raphael]
[silence]
09:28:47 [raphael]
Yves's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0035.html
09:30:01 [silvia]
let's not mix formats
09:30:04 [raphael]
Yves made 2 suggestions
09:30:16 [raphael]
... 1: unit and then values
09:30:23 [raphael]
... 2: unit can be mixed
09:30:35 [raphael]
Michael: second option seems more comple
09:30:41 [raphael]
s/comple/complex
09:30:56 [raphael]
Raphael: we don't need to mix units, anyway, the URI syntax does not permit it
09:32:02 [raphael]
Yves proposal just concerns the time dimension ... more issue with other dimensions
09:32:30 [raphael]
Frank: what will be the duration of the track dimension?
09:32:45 [mhausenblas]
Michael: track and ID do not have dimensions
09:32:47 [raphael]
Michael: track is identified by a name, full stop
09:33:09 [raphael]
Raphael: is track and id a Range request?
09:33:28 [raphael]
... if yes, then what is the Content Range ?
09:34:04 [raphael]
... if this is: Content-Range: track 'video' / what is behind the '/' ?
09:34:07 [raphael]
q+
09:34:08 [silvia]
you could talk about the number of labels
09:34:23 [conrad]
track does not belong in Range
09:34:40 [erik]
rssagent, draft minutes
09:34:57 [mhausenblas]
ack raphael
09:35:25 [erik]
rrsagent, draft minutes
09:35:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-minutes.html erik
09:35:47 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:35:47 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:35:51 [mhausenblas]
q+ to talk about orthogonal addressing concept continuos (time/spatial) and discrete (track/ID)
09:35:54 [conrad]
Zakim, unmute me
09:35:54 [Zakim]
conrad should no longer be muted
09:36:09 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:36:09 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:36:18 [mhausenblas]
ack conrad
09:36:42 [raphael]
Silvia: yes, good point from Conrad, why does he think track and id are not range request?
09:37:14 [raphael]
Conrad: I think a track is not something one can see as a range
09:37:25 [Gui]
Track is not a time range, at best, Track is a Byte range which correspond to this piece of the media only holding the track, at worste, its muxed and interleaved and has no range
09:37:27 [raphael]
... i admit, tricky issue
09:37:34 [mhausenblas]
ack me
09:37:34 [Zakim]
mhausenblas, you wanted to talk about orthogonal addressing concept continuos (time/spatial) and discrete (track/ID)
09:37:36 [raphael]
zakim, ack michael
09:37:37 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
09:37:58 [conrad]
range should be for continuous addressing
09:38:03 [conrad]
Zakim, mute me
09:38:03 [Zakim]
conrad should now be muted
09:38:03 [raphael]
Raphael: Guillaume, we are not talking about time range ... but range request, expressed in bytes or other units
09:38:38 [raphael]
Michael: Orthogonal addressing concepts: time / spatial (continuous) vs track / id (discrete)
09:38:55 [raphael]
Raphael: I would say "id" is even different, since this is a combination of the others
09:39:24 [raphael]
Raphael: I would put id aside
09:39:31 [Gui]
raphael: I was answering to michael mentioning that track COULD be a time range, and I think it just can't
09:39:36 [conrad]
you can't define a distance metric over track ;-)
09:39:41 [silvia]
so do we need different mechanisms to resolve id and track?
09:40:08 [conrad]
so this is why i was suggesting a Fragment header
09:40:10 [Gui]
Michael & Raphael : Ok
09:40:12 [silvia]
maybe track can only ever be used with ?
09:40:15 [conrad]
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Server-parsed_Fragments
09:40:28 [conrad]
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/HTTP_Examples#Track.2BTime_Fragment_URI
09:40:40 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:40:40 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:40:42 [Gui]
There is a case where what's behind the track video / 1 could be an index in case many audio or video tracks
09:41:14 [raphael]
Silvia: when we started to talk about fragments, we were talking about continous set of bytes
09:41:20 [raphael]
... for temporal, it was a reasonable assumption
09:41:35 [raphael]
... for spatial, it starts to be a problem in most of the coding format
09:41:48 [raphael]
... for track, as Conrad said, it is difficult
09:42:01 [raphael]
... is it a case of transcoding that can be resolved only with transcoding ?
09:42:14 [davy]
if an adaptation can be expressed in terms of byte ranges, it is not transcoding
09:42:18 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:42:18 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:42:21 [raphael]
... I'm not sure about that either ... I'm very uncertain so far, I need to make my mind
09:42:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
09:43:01 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:43:01 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:43:26 [raphael]
Michael: I'm afraid we are introducing something too complex
09:43:38 [raphael]
Raphael: accessibility is the main use case for tracks and it is very important
09:43:55 [mhausenblas]
s/something too complex/something too complex with the ID concept; track might be sufficient
09:44:18 [conrad]
a track request without transcoding may result in thousands of byte ranges for concatenation
09:44:21 [raphael]
Silvia: our focus is on time ... this needs to get more thoughts
09:44:26 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:44:26 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:44:37 [Gui]
Gui agrees with Conrad
09:45:32 [davy]
what's wrong with that if the server joines these byte ranges?
09:45:44 [raphael]
Raphael: expectation is to have a 2nd WD ready by the end of the month to be published
09:46:10 [raphael]
Silvia: would suggest to focus on temporal domain for this next version of the WD, such that people can start using it - the browser vendors and HTML5 are keen to get into it
09:46:30 [raphael]
Davy: I don't think this is an issue for the server to do the join of the bytes ranges and serve the joint part
09:46:41 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:46:41 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:46:51 [conrad]
davy, yes, that case is not an issue
09:46:51 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:46:51 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:47:15 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:47:15 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:47:45 [conrad]
for this resolution we would need to specify an exact set of range names
09:48:14 [raphael]
Raphael: time for resolution
09:48:21 [raphael]
... I see 2 proposals on the table
09:48:58 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:48:58 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:49:09 [raphael]
... Proposal 1: Content-Range <timeformat> ' ' <real start time> '-' <real end time> '/' <total duration>
09:49:26 [raphael]
... actually, <timeformat> is <unit>
09:49:36 [tmichel]
tmichel has joined #mediafrag
09:49:48 [raphael]
... Proposal 2: Content-Range <dimension> ':' <unit> ' ' <real start time> '-' <real end time> '/' <total duration>
09:50:18 [silvia]
no quite - this is correct for proposal 2: Content-Range: time:<timeformat> ' ' <real start time> '-' <real end time> '/' <total duration>
09:50:22 [raphael]
... in the second proposal, <dimension> will be 'time', 'xywh', etc.
09:50:39 [silvia]
yeah, but <total duration> may change depending on the <unit>
09:51:31 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:51:31 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:51:31 [raphael]
Raphael: what is the added value of having the dimension ?
09:51:49 [raphael]
... smpte unit means we are in the time dimension, no confusion possible
09:51:50 [conrad]
the value of specifying dimension is to simplify the standardization
09:52:19 [raphael]
Silvia: it is more readable, and the total duration can be unit dependent and NOT unit dependent
09:52:32 [davy]
+1 to Silvia
09:52:34 [conrad]
ie. "the advantage of being more flexible, but less robust to the introduction of new units"
09:52:36 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:52:36 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:52:52 [conrad]
Zakim, unmute me
09:52:52 [Zakim]
conrad should no longer be muted
09:53:45 [erik]
q+
09:54:07 [raphael]
zakim, ack Erik
09:54:07 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
09:54:19 [raphael]
Erik: the proposal 2 here is NOT the proposal 2 of Yves
09:54:33 [raphael]
... Proposal 2 is an amendment from Silvia from Proposal 1 from Yves
09:55:48 [silvia]
advantages as I see them: (1) can use default unit per dimension with only dimension (2) can be more easily extended with new units since <total duration> won't change (3) is more like url specification
09:55:59 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:55:59 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:56:01 [conrad]
if the duration includes a frameno it is timeformat dependent
09:56:10 [conrad]
Zakim, mute me
09:56:10 [Zakim]
conrad should now be muted
09:56:25 [raphael]
correct conrad
09:57:29 [raphael]
Silvia: <total duration> is not correct
09:57:36 [raphael]
... we need to be more genreic
09:57:46 [raphael]
s/genreic/generic
09:57:52 [FD]
Rename <total duration> into <total-dimension> ?
09:58:09 [raphael]
other suggestion ?
09:58:53 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:58:53 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:59:17 [silvia]
Proposal 2: Content-Range <dimension> [':' <unit>] ' ' <real start time> '-' <real end time> '/' <total dimension>
09:59:18 [erik]
+1 to Silvia's "Proposal 2" here
09:59:45 [raphael]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Content-Range <dimension> [':' <unit>] ' ' <real start time> '-' <real end time> '/' <total dimension>
09:59:48 [raphael]
+1
09:59:50 [conrad]
+1
09:59:51 [davy]
+1
09:59:53 [silvia]
+1
10:00:05 [mhausenblas]
+1
10:00:15 [erik]
+1
10:00:20 [Gui]
looking
10:00:31 [Gui]
+1
10:00:53 [raphael]
RESOLUTION: Content-Range <dimension> [':' <unit>] ' ' <real start time> '-' <real end time> '/' <total dimension> is the syntax to be used for a Range Request for the temporal dimension
10:01:06 [silvia]
yay
10:01:10 [Gui]
great!
10:01:11 [erik]
:)
10:01:19 [FD]
not only temporal!
10:01:33 [silvia]
well, we have to see if it works for all dimensions
10:01:47 [silvia]
right now we're sure it works for time
10:02:40 [raphael]
Topic: 3. AOB
10:02:48 [FD]
I think <real start time> and <real end time> should also be generalized
10:03:00 [silvia]
FD, so right!
10:03:00 [conrad]
Zakim, unmute me
10:03:00 [Zakim]
conrad should no longer be muted
10:03:06 [Gui]
zakim, unmute me
10:03:06 [Zakim]
Gui should no longer be muted
10:03:10 [silvia]
bye
10:03:11 [Zakim]
-mhausenblas
10:03:12 [Zakim]
-raphael
10:03:14 [raphael]
Thanks all for the engagement
10:03:14 [Zakim]
-Gui
10:03:16 [FD]
quit
10:03:16 [Zakim]
-silvia
10:03:16 [davy]
bye
10:03:17 [Zakim]
-conrad
10:03:20 [erik]
rssagent, draft minutes
10:03:23 [Zakim]
-FD
10:03:26 [raphael]
... I wish we have the same productivity tomorrow morning
10:03:26 [Zakim]
-tmichel
10:03:27 [Zakim]
-erik
10:03:27 [Zakim]
IA_MFWG(F2F)4:00AM has ended
10:03:28 [Zakim]
Attendees were +0329331aaaa, mhausenblas, +61.2.801.2.aabb, raphael, silvia, erik, Yves, +2712841aacc, Gui, tmichel, conrad, +aadd, FD
10:03:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
10:03:56 [davy]
davy has left #mediafrag
10:07:14 [raphael]
zakim, bye
10:07:14 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #mediafrag
11:29:04 [nessy]
nessy has joined #mediafrag
11:35:12 [raphael]
RRSAgent, bye
11:35:12 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-actions.rdf :
11:35:12 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Erik and Davy to write a paragraph in the documents to explain why we don't include this feature in the spec (rationale) based on the group analysis [1]
11:35:12 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-irc#T08-17-01
11:35:12 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Silvia to draft a summary starting from her blog post and these IRC minutes in the document [2]
11:35:12 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-irc#T09-22-35