Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 22 September 2010

1. Admin

Accept the minutes from 15/09

http://www.w3.org/2010/09/15-mediafrag-minutes.html

+1 ?

<foolip> +1

<erik> +1

minutes accepted

2. TPAC

TPAC week from Nov 1st till Nov 5th in Lyon France

Yves, most likely only on Tuesday

Davy will attend the whole week

Raphael will attend from Mon till Thu or Fri

There are 40$ fees per day, and the fees increase after Oct 22nd

scribe: so please register before

<scribe> ACTION: Yves to book zakim for the 2 days meeting of the group on Mon 1st and Tue 2nd Nov [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/22-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-185 - Book zakim for the 2 days meeting of the group on Mon 1st and Tue 2nd Nov [on Yves Lafon - due 2010-09-29].

ACTION-183?

<trackbot> ACTION-183 -- Raphaël Troncy to send reminders to all relevant groups -- due 2010-09-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/183

I have not yet done this for IETF, TAG

3. MEDIA FRAGMENT EXTENSION:

Erik: no more news from Michael/Conrad should we be concerned?

Raphael: I don't think so ... there are no critical actions from them we depend on
... if they can provide feedback, it's good
... we must progress without waiting

Philippe's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Aug/0005.html

Philippe: this is just one part of the problem
... we could include this piece of ABNF in the doc

ACTIOn-173?

<trackbot> ACTION-173 -- Yves Lafon to produce the code that will check the grammar of both the URI syntax and the Headers syntax -- due 2010-06-22 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/173

ISSUE-19?

<trackbot> ISSUE-19 -- Parsing must be defined normatively in the MF spec itself -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/19

Yves: action is still pending
... what I would like to have is what goes in the javascript stack from the browsers when they meet a %encoded URL
... %encoded and html-encoded URL (with ampersand)

Erik: is this browser independent?

<foolip> html entities: &amp;

<foolip> percent encoding: %64

Philippe: this never reaches javascript, this is handled by the HTML parser
... for percent encoding, yes, the js sees the un-decode string

Yves: could you send to the mailing list the tests you have made so we can test on another browser than Opera

Philippe: sure

<scribe> ACTION: philippe to send his list of test cases to the mailing list for understanding how browsers handle %-encodded and html-encoded URL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/22-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - philippe

<foolip> Philip

<scribe> ACTION: philip to send his list of test cases to the mailing list for understanding how browsers handle %-encodded and html-encoded URL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/22-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-186 - Send his list of test cases to the mailing list for understanding how browsers handle %-encodded and html-encoded URL [on Philip Jägenstedt - due 2010-09-29].

Erik: what's happened if browsers manage this inconsistently?

Raphael: the related problem deals with extensibility
... of the URI syntax

Philip: the whole thing is to have a break into name/value pairs
... and then be relaxed if you don't understand all name/value pairs
... I think we should have a syntax, that mandates what we should have as name/value
... parsers fail for typos
... but implementations should be more relaxed

Yves: what bothers me that the ABNF tells both what the syntax is and how to parse it
... the big issue is something that is not a media fragment can be recognized as a Media Fragment

<foolip> "parsers fail for typos" isn't correct

<foolip> a validator would, but not a parser in a browser

Yves: we could put an algorithm for the browser
... we need to decide first what to do with extensibility
... then I don't see problem of having the algo closed to the ABNF definition
... so Annex D will move up towards the formal grammar

Erik: I will not make the parsing instructions normative, they are useful guidelines only

Philip: if we need to valid the whole URI before, then parsers will be broken with version 2

Yves: yes, but if the new thing means already something you're already into trouble

<silvia> ping?

Yves: I agree

s/agrre/agree with Philip

Raphael: could we just write a normative paragraph that states how the parser should behave ?

Erik: a lot of test cases would need to be redefined

Yves: I want to have everybody on the phone to agree what we want to do with extensibility

<Yves> I would note that we can try to get agreement on the ML in the meantime

<scribe> ACTION: Philip to start a new thread about extensibility of the Media Fragments in order to get consensus by next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/22-mediafrag-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-187 - Start a new thread about extensibility of the Media Fragments in order to get consensus by next week [on Philip Jägenstedt - due 2010-09-29].

Tpic: 4. PUBLIC COMMENT

ACTON-184?

ACTION-184?

<trackbot> ACTION-184 -- Yves Lafon to email Chris the reply on when to send the range header -- due 2010-09-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/184

Yves: pending?

5. AOB?

<erik> have a nice day

Silvia: will you attend TPAC in Lyon ?

<silvia> raphael: no and I think I have un-registered