IRC log of mediafrag on 2010-11-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:58:08 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #mediafrag
08:58:08 [RRSAgent]
logging to
08:58:10 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
08:58:10 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #mediafrag
08:58:12 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be IA_MFWG
08:58:12 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
08:58:13 [trackbot]
Meeting: Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
08:58:13 [trackbot]
Date: 17 November 2010
08:58:33 [raphael]
zakim, list conferences ?
08:58:33 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, raphael.
08:58:36 [raphael]
zakim, list conferences
08:58:36 [Zakim]
I see no active conferences and none scheduled to start in the next 15 minutes
09:08:57 [erik]
erik has joined #mediafrag
09:17:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate raphael
09:25:19 [homata]
homata has joined #mediafrag
09:45:32 [homata_]
homata_ has joined #mediafrag
10:05:43 [raphael]
trackbot, start telecon
10:05:45 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
10:05:47 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be IA_MFWG
10:05:47 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot, I see IA_MFWG()5:00AM already started
10:05:48 [trackbot]
Meeting: Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
10:05:48 [trackbot]
Date: 17 November 2010
10:07:15 [Zakim]
10:08:04 [Zakim]
+ +
10:08:06 [raphael]
zakim, who is there?
10:08:06 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, raphael.
10:08:10 [raphael]
zakim, who is here?
10:08:10 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +49.408.081.7.aaaa, +44.329.331.aacc, Yves, +
10:08:12 [Zakim]
On IRC I see homata_, erik, Zakim, RRSAgent, raphael, tomayac, silvia, foolip, Yves, trackbot
10:08:28 [raphael]
zakim, +49 is tomayac
10:08:28 [Zakim]
+tomayac; got it
10:08:39 [raphael]
zakim, +44 is erik
10:08:39 [Zakim]
sorry, raphael, I do not recognize a party named '+44'
10:09:10 [raphael]
10:09:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate raphael
10:11:08 [tomayac]
hamburg, germany, yes
10:11:38 [raphael]
Topic: 1. Admin
10:11:53 [raphael]
Present: Thomas, Yves, Erik, Raphael, Silvia (irc), Philip (irc)
10:12:00 [raphael]
Regrets: Davy
10:12:03 [raphael]
Chair: Raphael
10:12:11 [raphael]
Scribe: Raphael
10:12:15 [raphael]
Scribenick: raphael
10:12:29 [raphael]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 7th F2F meeting:
10:12:29 [raphael]
10:12:29 [raphael]
10:12:41 [raphael]
10:12:46 [erik]
+1 (but am still reading it though :)
10:12:46 [raphael]
10:12:57 [tomayac]
pass ;-)
10:12:58 [Yves]
10:13:05 [raphael]
minutes accepted
10:13:25 [raphael]
Topic: 2. Media Fragment Specification
10:14:10 [raphael]
For IBBT ...
10:14:28 [raphael]
10:14:28 [trackbot]
ACTION-192 -- Davy Van Deursen to update the specification to state what the processing should do when media fragments request (time dimension) does not match exactly how the media item has been encoded -- due 2010-11-08 -- OPEN
10:14:28 [trackbot]
10:14:35 [raphael]
10:14:35 [trackbot]
ACTION-193 -- Erik Mannens to make a schema for the server redirect recipe -- due 2010-11-08 -- OPEN
10:14:35 [trackbot]
10:14:41 [raphael]
10:14:41 [trackbot]
ACTION-195 -- Davy Van Deursen to add a paragraph in the section 7.1 to specify that video, audio, img or any href is all treated similarly (range request issued when facing a media fragment) -- due 2010-11-08 -- OPEN
10:14:41 [trackbot]
10:14:48 [raphael]
10:14:48 [trackbot]
ACTION-191 -- Yves Lafon to update the production rules of the time dimension with the npt format for making the hours optional -- due 2010-11-08 -- OPEN
10:14:48 [trackbot]
10:15:04 [raphael]
Yves started to do it during the f2f meeting, needs to add a sentence in the spec
10:15:19 [raphael]
10:15:19 [trackbot]
ISSUE-19 -- Parsing must be defined normatively in the MF spec itself -- open
10:15:19 [trackbot]
10:15:56 [raphael]
Philip has proposed a number of patches, see result at
10:16:44 [raphael]
Yves has discussed this with Philip which sort of outdate this proposal
10:17:06 [raphael]
Yves: the result is that we should keep the grammar as it is, + some clarification text on the purpose of the grammar
10:17:41 [raphael]
... + a normative algorithm for parsing
10:18:05 [raphael]
... we need consensus and approval from Jack, Silvia, and Davy at least in the group + feedback from the implementers
10:18:46 [silvia]
is the proposal formally specified somewhere?
10:19:04 [silvia]
I'm probably ok with it but don't want to give a blind vote
10:19:20 [raphael]
Raphael: what this clarification text should express?
10:19:20 [Yves]
the purpose of the grammar is to describe the "normal" syntax, ie: the one that should be created
10:19:45 [Yves]
ie: it is not the parsing rules
10:19:56 [raphael]
Raphael: where we should write this ?
10:21:25 [raphael]
Yves: at the beginning of section 4 and appendix D
10:21:34 [raphael]
... as a reminder
10:22:36 [raphael]
ACTION: raphael to add a clarification text regarding the purpose of the grammar
10:22:36 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - raphael
10:22:42 [raphael]
ACTION: troncy to add a clarification text regarding the purpose of the grammar
10:22:43 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-199 - Add a clarification text regarding the purpose of the grammar [on Raphaël Troncy - due 2010-11-24].
10:23:04 [raphael]
Raphael: regarding the parsing algorithm
10:23:26 [raphael]
Yves: back to a very detailed description of the algorithm
10:23:38 [raphael]
... I would like to read it crisp and procedural
10:24:12 [raphael]
... we need an agreement that the parsing algorithm become normative
10:24:53 [raphael]
... I would agree that given this clarification of role, the algorithm become normative
10:24:59 [raphael]
Erik: I agree too
10:25:53 [raphael]
Silvia, would you have any objection of having a detailed parsing algorithm of a media fragment URI nomative in the spec instead of an annex?
10:26:30 [raphael]
Tow versions of the algorithm
10:26:33 [raphael]
... 1/
10:26:37 [Yves]
10:27:15 [raphael]
... 2/
10:27:33 [raphael]
... and
10:28:06 [raphael]
... and
10:31:53 [silvia]
no objection here
10:33:46 [raphael]
Raphael: I agree to ask Philip to put which version he prefers
10:33:57 [raphael]
... the only contentious issue might be: 2.
10:33:57 [raphael]
2. Otherwise, the name-value pair does not represent a media fragment dimension. Validators should emit a warning. User agents must ignore the name-value pair.
10:33:57 [raphael]
Note: Because the name-value pairs are processed in order, the last valid occurence of any dimension is the one that is used.
10:34:38 [raphael]
Raphael: Validators should perhaps emit an error rahter a warning ?
10:34:47 [raphael]
10:35:26 [raphael]
... the processing order of the dimensions and whether parsing should be relaxed or not in case of multiple occurences of the same dimension (except track)
10:36:23 [raphael]
ACTION: troncy to send a proposal to close ISSUE-19 that consists in: clarification text + normative parsing algorithm
10:36:23 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-200 - Send a proposal to close ISSUE-19 that consists in: clarification text + normative parsing algorithm [on Raphaël Troncy - due 2010-11-24].
10:36:41 [foolip]
I prefer my latest version that uses the namevalues syntax
10:37:06 [raphael]
great, thanks Philip, we will use this one then :-)
10:37:25 [raphael]
Topic: 3. Media fragments URI on web page
10:37:55 [raphael]
Raphael: started by a thread from Silvia
10:38:02 [raphael]
... discussed at the F2F meeting:
10:38:33 [raphael]
... lead to the notion of optimistic use if the Range header, only for the second unit
10:38:50 [raphael]
... it cannot be done for any other way for getting part of the content
10:38:52 [Yves]
10:38:54 [silvia]
(except that my email was about something completely different ;-)
10:39:15 [Yves]
yeah I think Silvia's email was about using the html fragment for video
10:39:37 [raphael]
s/use if/use of
10:39:40 [Yves]
which by default is => no (ie: it's per page, so you can't generalize this)
10:40:14 [silvia]
it was not to become normative - the idea is to propose a syntax that people can choose to make use of
10:40:59 [silvia]
because the html URI is much more important for most video on the web than the video URI
10:43:45 [raphael]
Yves: there are 2 orthogonal issues
10:44:00 [raphael]
... the fragment applies to ONE resource you're retrieving
10:44:24 [raphael]
... if you want the fragment on the page be applied to the video element on that page, this is your javascript that can do that, nothing to put in the spe
10:44:27 [raphael]
10:45:30 [raphael]
... the other issue of optimistic use of the Range header, Philip states that this is up to the URI spec to change
10:45:37 [raphael]
... I quote: "The semantics of the fragment identifier is defined by each MIME type registration. Before we know the type, we can't assume anything. Therefore, the only possibility is if the URL/URI/IRI spec itself states that #t=1 has some semantics for *all* types and that this should cause headers Foo and Bar to be sent. However, I truly doubt we'll see media-specific things like this put into URL/URI/IRI, it's seems like a gigantic layering violat
10:46:21 [silvia]
as I said: the idea is to give a Web developer that wants to do media fragments on a Web page a recommendation for how to do the URI structure on their page - they still have to implement it themselves, it's just handy to agree on the same approach
10:46:57 [silvia]
no need for more Range headers, or an implementation in browsers or anything - just a helping hand for Web developers
10:46:58 [raphael]
Raphael: I agree silvia, and I strongly recommend to add a new Appendix for what you propose, note to developers :-)
10:48:00 [foolip]
Agreed, as long as there's no change in UA behavior for #t=1 for HTML I'm fine with recommending web developers to use the syntax
10:48:10 [silvia]
btw: all the video hosting sites already have such approaches in the URIs so it's not theoretic
10:48:37 [Yves]
I agree that we can't assume anything, and we shouldn't break any layer, but if we know enogh context, using Range request with a unit that can only be applied to the media type we are targeting (and will default to normal behaviour for all the others)
10:48:45 [raphael]
Silvia, would you like to have an action to write a paragraph, note to developers, that they can easily implement a javascript to forward the hash on the URI to the video element?
10:48:58 [Yves]
is a (not nice) possible optimisation
10:49:00 [silvia]
yup, no problem
10:49:06 [silvia]
just don't know when I'll get around to it :)
10:49:23 [Yves]
context should be that URI is in a <video> tag
10:49:33 [silvia]
10:49:59 [raphael]
ACTION: Silvia to write a paragraph, note to developers, that they can easily implement a javascript to forward the hash on the URI to the video element
10:49:59 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-201 - Write a paragraph, note to developers, that they can easily implement a javascript to forward the hash on the URI to the video element [on Silvia Pfeiffer - due 2010-11-24].
10:50:48 [raphael]
Raphael: it is part of my action to clarify the use of optimistic use of Range header optimization in case we are in the right context <audio> or <video> element
10:51:11 [erik]
10:51:15 [raphael]
Topic: 4. AOB
10:51:22 [raphael]
zakim, ack erik
10:51:22 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
10:51:32 [raphael]
Erik: what is the schedule?
10:51:55 [Yves]
10:53:30 [raphael]
Raphael: finish all actions in the tracker by the end of the month, so we can transition to CR
10:53:44 [raphael]
... have a telecon about test cases afterwards, for preparing the exit CR stage
10:54:24 [erik]
horay for Thomas!
10:54:35 [tomayac]
thanks :-)
10:54:48 [tomayac]
10:56:48 [raphael]
Raphael: we have discussed Ken Harrenstien
10:56:54 [raphael]
... from YouTube
10:57:52 [Zakim]
10:57:53 [Zakim]
10:57:54 [Zakim]
10:57:55 [Zakim]
10:57:56 [Zakim]
IA_MFWG()5:00AM has ended
10:57:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate raphael
10:57:57 [Zakim]
Attendees were +49.408.081.7.aaaa, +44.329.331.aabb, +44.329.331.aacc, Yves, +, Raphael, Thomas, tomayac
10:59:24 [raphael]
ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
10:59:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate raphael
11:01:04 [tomayac]
funny enough ken and me have already been in contact with regards to YT closed captions. i'll catch up with him and let him know about recent developments.
11:02:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate raphael
11:09:49 [silvia]
what is the matter about Ken?
11:09:56 [silvia]
I work with Ken very closely
11:11:05 [tomayac]
cool! i had asked him for help wrt semwebvid and closed captions
11:11:42 [silvia]
what is your goal?
11:12:04 [silvia]
(sorry I missed chatting with you)
11:12:39 [tomayac]
automatically annotating video content w/ rdf based on closed captions
11:13:54 [silvia]
ah ok - cool
11:14:08 [silvia]
are you using media frag URIs?
11:14:41 [tomayac]
saying hi to silvia on the google internal chat ;-)
11:14:58 [tomayac]
silvia, if you check the app demo, there're anchors on the left pane
11:15:02 [silvia]
11:16:10 [tomayac]
at this point in time the app uses only the simplest possible media fragments, but looking into implementing temporal and spatial as well
11:16:54 [silvia]
that's awesome!
12:44:08 [tmichel]
tmichel has joined #mediafrag
13:11:10 [mhausenblas]
mhausenblas has joined #mediafrag
13:14:32 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #mediafrag