<trackbot> Date: 16 December 2009

<erik> scribe: jack

1 admin

erik: accept minutes
... postpone f2f discussion until next call

<erik> +1

<silvia> +1

<Yves> +1

+1

2 specification

erik: first details as pointed out by Thierry

Thierry: don't worry, I will do that.
... boilerplate, uri, etc.
... have also communicated with Philippe

erik: I will send draft email (to chairs), please comment

Thierry: that email can go out next morning

erik: ok
... that is spec document. How about note?

Thierry: much simpler, already exists, so no transition needed
... But need to cater for pubrules, there are currently soe broken URIs.

erik: ok, I will take care of it.
... On to the spec. Silvia, can you explain section 5?

<davy> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#processing

silvia: goes over section naming and content (for 5.1)

<Yves> I would note that error handling might get in the way of future upgrades/other use of similar syntax

silvia: 5.2 has more substantial changes, is now in line with section 3

<conrad> yes i have lots of issues but i won't delay publication with them, they can wait for a future revision

silvia: Finally 5.3 is in sync with 3.5
... 5.3 needs work, but this should delay publication

erik: are the ABNF errors fixed?

<silvia> npttime = ( 1*DIGIT [ "." 1*DIGIT ] [timeunit] ) /

<silvia> ( 1*DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT [ "." 1*DIGIT] )

<silvia> "." 1*DIGIT -> RTSP: "." *DIGIT

<Yves> the change can wait after publication

silvia: I think it is fixed

<Yves> we need to check other definitions as well

<davy> FYI: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2326.txt, section 3.6

<Yves> agree with Jack section 5.3 is just not needed. It's a normal GET on a URI

<Yves> ah jack was talking about 5.1.3

<davy> I agree with Jack too

jack: hates 5.1.3, handling of over-specified dimensions

yves: agrees.

jack: should we add a note to this section, saying that we are rethinking this section?

yves: can do.

silvia: ok, will add a note that this is contentious.

erik: more comments?

yves: some issues with header syntax

<tmichel> Sylvia, let me know when you are done with the editing. Then We freeze the document.

yves: but: difficult to do without f2f

conrad: Silvia, Davy and me are going to be at FOMS in NZ in January

<conrad> foms-workshop.org

erik: conrad, comments on state of the document?

conrad: nothing in particular

erik: should we have a f2f soon?

yves: yes

eri: action points

<davy> action-123?

<trackbot> ACTION-123 -- Yves Lafon to come up with ABNF for header syntax -- due 2009-12-09 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/123

Yves: keep 123 open for now

erik: 123 can close

close ACTION-124

<trackbot> ACTION-124 Rework section 5 according to Raphael's restructuration plan http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Dec/0009.html due 2009-12-15 closed

erik: and 125 is still open

2.1 MF URI Syntax

<scribe> ACTION: Yves to follow up on error in ABFN for npt [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/12/16-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-126 - Follow up on misalignment with RTSP in ABFN for npt [on Yves Lafon - due 2009-12-23].

erik: skipping topic 2.2, done or postponed

2.3 MF processing

erik: also skipping, either done or postponed

2.4 Discovery of 'Track' and 'Named' fragment

Davy: did a quick implementation to experiment.
... but: agree with mailinglist comments that we don't need to standardise this

silvia: Something like ROE is needed

<Yves> +1 to jack

jack: don't want to discuss merits of ROE right now, but think it's outside our charter

silvia: agrees. But should point out it exists

davy: agrees.
... Clients could also use Media Annotations work to interface to it

erik: Jack, did you write up on distinction?

jack: uhm...

silvia: I think that was never intended. Just reaction to my post.

erik: ok, let's close this then

3.5 Handling of 'Track' and 'ID':

silvia: COnrad suggests handling track an id completely different from rest.
... I don't agree.

I have given an example. I think this issue is contentious, need to discuss.

silvia: I have given an example. I think this issue is contentious, need to discuss.
... There is an ednote at the end of section 5.2.2 pointing this out

Conrad: I won't block pub on this

Publication of first public draft

<Yves> agreed

<silvia> agreed

<erik> +1

<conrad> +1

erik: does the group agree that we want to publish the first public draft?

+1

<davy> +1

<tmichel> Resolution: The Media Frag WG agrees (with no objections) to Publish Media Fragments 1.0 to First Public WD.

erik: does the group agree we puibpish the use cases document?

<conrad> +1

<silvia> +1

<davy> +1

s/puibphish/publish

<erik> +1

+1

<tmichel> Resolution: The Media Frag WG agrees (with no objections) to publish Use cases and requirements for Media Fragments, to Ordinary WD.

erik: ok, thank you all!

<silvia> one sec

erik: Only thing left to do is two little adjustments by Silvia

<silvia> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#processing-protocol-Server-mapped has conrad's fragment objection now as an ed note

<silvia> editing finished

silvia: no more:-)

<tmichel> Very good thanks Sylvia

erik: ok,thanks everyone, happy new year, see you next year!

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Yves/Thierry/
Succeeded: s/ls//
Succeeded: s/???/FOMS/
Succeeded: s/error/misalignment with RTSP/
Succeeded: s/jaack/jack/
Succeeded: s/poitning/pointing/
FAILED: s/puibphish/publish/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: jackjansen
Found Scribe: jack
Default Present: Erik, Jack_Jansen, Thierry, Yves, silvia, [IPcaller]
Present: Erik Jack_Jansen Thierry Yves silvia Conrad Davy
Regrets: raphael michael
Found Date: 16 Dec 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/12/16-mediafrag-minutes.html
People with action items: yves