IRC log of mediafrag on 2010-11-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

10:04:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #mediafrag
10:04:26 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/24-mediafrag-irc
10:04:28 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
10:04:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #mediafrag
10:04:31 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be IA_MFWG
10:04:31 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see IA_MFWG()5:00AM scheduled to start 4 minutes ago
10:04:32 [trackbot]
Meeting: Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
10:04:32 [trackbot]
Date: 24 November 2010
10:05:37 [Zakim]
IA_MFWG()5:00AM has now started
10:05:44 [Zakim]
+tomayac
10:06:02 [Zakim]
+Yves
10:08:33 [Zakim]
+Raphael
10:08:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/24-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
10:09:48 [raphael]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Nov/0033.html
10:09:58 [raphael]
Regrets: davy, eric
10:10:19 [raphael]
Present: Yves, Raphael, Thomas, Silvia, Philip (irc)
10:10:54 [raphael]
Chair: Raphael
10:10:57 [raphael]
Scribe: Raphael
10:11:00 [raphael]
scribenick: raphael
10:11:05 [raphael]
Topic: 1. Admin
10:12:25 [tomayac]
+1
10:12:27 [raphael]
Propose to accept the minutes of last telecon: http://www.w3.org/2010/11/17-mediafrag-minutes.html
10:12:29 [raphael]
+1
10:12:32 [Yves]
+1
10:12:39 [raphael]
minutes accepted
10:12:40 [silvia]
+1
10:12:45 [raphael]
ACTION-183?
10:12:45 [trackbot]
ACTION-183 -- Raphaƫl Troncy to send reminders to all relevant groups -- due 2010-09-15 -- OPEN
10:12:45 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/183
10:12:55 [raphael]
close ACTION-183
10:12:55 [trackbot]
ACTION-183 Send reminders to all relevant groups closed
10:13:47 [raphael]
Raphael: I did send an email to whatwg and html5
10:13:57 [raphael]
... but the mail to the html5 mailing list didn't get through
10:14:02 [raphael]
... subscription problem
10:14:15 [raphael]
Silvia, could you please forward my email to the HTML5 mailing list?
10:14:34 [silvia]
oh, did it not go through?
10:14:38 [silvia]
will do
10:15:00 [raphael]
... I have also contacted Chris Double, Frank Olivier and Eric Carlson to get more reviews
10:15:11 [homata]
homata has joined #mediafrag
10:15:15 [raphael]
... and the CSS working group regarding the bug http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10723
10:15:29 [raphael]
No, silvia, my mail went through the whatwg mailing list but NOT the html5 one
10:15:45 [silvia]
ok
10:15:52 [raphael]
Topic: Discuss HTML5 bug
10:16:01 [raphael]
See: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10723
10:16:38 [raphael]
Question is what we should do since this bug has been closed by Ian
10:17:07 [foolip]
If he's wrong, we should explain why.
10:17:41 [silvia]
I think we need to propose an actual spec change
10:18:38 [foolip]
That will also do fine
10:18:55 [silvia]
then there is something to discuss
10:19:19 [raphael]
Yves: for images, if the cropping is the default rendering behavior, it should be specified in our spec
10:20:10 [raphael]
... for video and audio, since there is more controls from the HTML5 spec, if the default behavior is highlighting, then it could be specified in HTML5
10:20:32 [Yves]
(for time dimension)
10:20:54 [silvia]
text about controls: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#attr-media-controls
10:21:10 [raphael]
Yves: silvia, is there in html5, something that says how external controls are displayed for video?
10:21:20 [Yves]
media-controls should know how to interact with a fragment
10:21:22 [raphael]
Silvia: there is only recommendations
10:22:38 [silvia]
Yes, I agree - there should be recommendations on what to display for a <video> or <audio> element that has a media fragment URI - in particular since we may recommend a UI change
10:23:27 [silvia]
but we need to formulate that recommendation
10:24:00 [raphael]
I agree Silvia
10:24:04 [Yves]
for everything linked only to the content, the content has to define the behaviour, for external artefacts, like video controls, as they are part (even informally) of html5, somehting need to be in the spec
10:24:10 [Yves]
+1 to Silvia
10:24:13 [silvia]
and we need to do this differently for temporal to spatial fragments
10:24:28 [raphael]
Problem is also process: bug is closed. Should we escalate it? Or open a new one for temporal dimension since we agree on the space dimension
10:24:51 [tomayac]
isnt part of ian's point that there are besides cropping no concrete use cases? only skimmed very rapidly, so might've misread
10:25:03 [homata_]
homata_ has joined #mediafrag
10:25:28 [silvia]
I'm not 100% sure about process (maybe Philip knows better), but I think we may be able to reopen the bug with new information
10:25:30 [tomayac]
aryeh's
10:26:30 [Yves]
silvia, I think so too, we need clarification of the intent, and proposed text, as currently, Ian is perfectly right in closing this bug
10:26:41 [silvia]
I agree
10:27:10 [silvia]
we haven't provided any answers to the questions raised in the bug
10:28:34 [raphael]
Yes, Thomas is discussing the non-cropping use case for spatial region
10:28:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/24-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
10:30:22 [Zakim]
+silvia
10:33:44 [silvia]
the bug was not registered with a particular focus on spatial fragments - it was generic for media fragment uris
10:34:27 [silvia]
we need to have changes at least on how the control display should change and also how the scroll-to-fragid should be done
10:34:37 [silvia]
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#scroll-to-fragid
10:37:32 [raphael]
ACTION: silvia to draft the paragraph that the group will propose to HTML5 regarding how the control of media fragment URI should be done
10:37:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-202 - Draft the paragraph that the group will propose to HTML5 regarding how the control of media fragment URI should be done [on Silvia Pfeiffer - due 2010-12-01].
10:38:02 [raphael]
Topic: 3. Media Fragment Specification
10:38:14 [raphael]
close ACTION-195
10:38:14 [trackbot]
ACTION-195 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) closed
10:39:12 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
10:39:12 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
10:39:36 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
10:39:36 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
10:40:18 [raphael]
Raphael: contentious issue, in the case of a media fragment URI in a very particular context, i.e. in the audio or video element, AND that media fragment URI looks like a temporal fragment
10:40:36 [raphael]
... then browser SHOULD?/COULD? issue a range request in a first place
10:40:45 [Yves]
MAY
10:41:04 [raphael]
... i.e. what we called the optimistic processing of media fragments
10:42:03 [raphael]
... if the server ack the fact the resource is a video, then it uses the recipe "Server mapped byte ranges" (section 5.1.2)
10:42:21 [raphael]
... if the server realized that the resource is not a video, then it ignores the Range header
10:43:08 [tomayac]
in this case MAY sounds too defensive
10:44:11 [Yves]
MAY sounds defensive, but it's the case for all optimisations that are approaching crossing the layers ;)
10:45:27 [raphael]
Raphael: anytime a URI looks like a #t= but only if this is the value of the href attibute of <video>/<audio> or the src attribute of the <source> element
10:46:01 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
10:46:01 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
10:46:24 [raphael]
Silvia: well, Apple implements the <video> element so that the value could also be a m3u playlist, not a media element
10:46:36 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
10:46:36 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
10:46:43 [silvia]
m3u8
10:46:58 [Yves]
ok, in that case, time range won't apply and you will get the whole thing
10:47:17 [Yves]
hence the "optimistic optimization" (and the MAY)
10:49:34 [raphael]
Raphael: I'm curious what will happen if the video element point to a m3u8 resource in a browser that is not Safari
10:50:29 [silvia]
http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#technotes/tn2010/tn2224.html <- example
10:50:48 [raphael]
foolip, do you have an opinion on this discussion?
10:51:19 [raphael]
ACTION-191?
10:51:19 [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
10:51:19 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/191
10:51:39 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
10:51:39 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
10:51:49 [raphael]
ACTION-173?
10:51:49 [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
10:51:49 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/173
10:52:24 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
10:52:24 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
10:53:03 [raphael]
Topic: 4. Use Cases and Requirements
10:53:13 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
10:53:13 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
10:54:08 [silvia]
have you collected all the issues that could be added to the use cases?
10:54:50 [raphael]
Raphael: we have Ericson people using media fragment URI for video chat, Thomas using the spec in SemWebVid, HTTP streaming that might use it too
10:55:08 [raphael]
... I wonder if at some point we should not update the UC note with these initiatives
10:55:44 [raphael]
... silvia, so far I'm only keeping track of the initiatives, and I think we should report them as well as the issues in the document later on
10:57:00 [raphael]
Thomas: currently I'm using simple media fragment to point to temporal sequences of video
10:57:37 [raphael]
... + content negotiation to get either the RDF annotation of the sequence (e.g. closed caption) or the video bits
10:58:27 [raphael]
... the overall vision is that search results could include media fragments URI pointing to sequences that are relevant for a video search
10:59:02 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
10:59:02 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
11:02:50 [raphael]
Thomas: use case of finding people and highlighting faces with media fragments URI, so something more highlighting than cropping
11:03:03 [raphael]
Silvia: I think you should bring this to the whatwg mailing list
11:03:16 [raphael]
Thomas: concerned about the too large traffic of this list
11:03:57 [tomayac]
silvia, maybe you could ping me a link to the thread, and i could jump in
11:03:58 [raphael]
Silvia: I understand, then make sure to include this in our planned reply to the html5 group
11:04:26 [raphael]
Silvia: are you aware of popcorn.js that does similar things that what you intend to do
11:04:54 [raphael]
Thomas: there is also a couple of BBC projects that do similar things, twitter streams displayed in parallel of programs
11:05:09 [raphael]
... also people in DERI working on this
11:05:24 [raphael]
... annotating conference media streams
11:06:31 [raphael]
Raphael: so you agree with the principle of reporting all these experiments in our UC note at some point?
11:06:38 [raphael]
Topic: 5. AOB
11:06:43 [raphael]
none
11:06:59 [Zakim]
-tomayac
11:07:01 [Zakim]
-Raphael
11:07:01 [Zakim]
-Yves
11:07:03 [Zakim]
IA_MFWG()5:00AM has ended
11:07:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/24-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
11:07:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were tomayac, Yves, Raphael, silvia
11:07:12 [silvia]
tomayac, you might want to read this thread: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-August/027581.html
11:09:35 [tomayac]
thanks, silvia
11:11:06 [tomayac]
can i ask an, erm, stupid question: if you say html5, do you say whatwg, or w3c?
11:11:55 [raphael]
ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
11:12:04 [foolip]
tomayac, same same, whatever comes up first in your favorite search engine :)
11:12:31 [tomayac]
wikipedia ;-)
11:12:36 [raphael]
great answer thomas
11:12:42 [raphael]
... the second one should be W3C
11:12:43 [raphael]
:-)
11:12:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/24-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
11:15:52 [foolip]
oh, in the context of <audio>, <video>, I think it's possible to send a range request without knowing the MIME type, but not really sane from a purity point of view. In any case I don't see it happening because the only benefit is one less round-trip, and only works with specialized servers
11:17:08 [foolip]
I don't think the benefit is tangible enough that browsers or servers would bother implementing it.
11:22:14 [Yves]
it will depend on big content provider interested or not in that (to reduce the load)
11:25:03 [foolip]
right, should any browser or provider show any kind of interest in it I could of course reconsider
11:27:26 [raphael]
you represent ONE browser, and I'm talking to provider, such as Dailymotion, who could be interested ... so it might be worth considering at some point
11:28:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/24-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
13:06:10 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #mediafrag