21:27:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #media
21:27:26 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/04/13-media-irc
21:27:38 <janina> zakim, this will be 2119
21:27:38 <Zakim> ok, janina; I see WAI_PFWG(A11Y)5:30PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
21:28:11 <Zakim> WAI_PFWG(A11Y)5:30PM has now started
21:28:18 <Zakim> +??P4
21:28:37 <janina> zakim, ??P4 is janina
21:28:37 <Zakim> +janina; got it
21:28:46 <janina> rrsagent, make log public
21:28:54 <janina> rrsagent, make minutes
21:28:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/13-media-minutes.html janina
21:29:16 <Zakim> + +1.650.862.aaaa
21:29:46 <Sean_> Sean_ has joined #media
21:30:01 <janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y telecon
21:30:02 <janina> Chair:  John_Foliot
21:30:02 <janina> agenda: this
21:30:02 <janina> agenda+ Identify Scribe
21:30:02 <janina> agenda+ Issue-152 Multitrack http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Change_Proposals_Summary
21:30:02 <janina> agenda+ Actions Review http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/track/actions/open
21:30:04 <janina> agenda+ Other Business?
21:30:06 <janina> agenda+ be done
21:31:15 <janina>  
21:31:22 <janina> zakim, take up item 1
21:31:22 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Identify Scribe" taken up [from janina]
21:31:23 <Zakim> + +44.154.558.aabb
21:31:25 <janina> scribe: janina
21:31:40 <Zakim> +Judy
21:32:00 <janina> zakim, close item 1
21:32:00 <Zakim> agendum 1, Identify Scribe, closed
21:32:01 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
21:32:03 <Zakim> 2. Issue-152 Multitrack http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Change_Proposals_Summary [from janina]
21:32:26 <Zakim> + +1.510.367.aacc
21:32:44 <janina> zakim, aabb is Eric
21:32:44 <Zakim> +Eric; got it
21:32:51 <janina> zakim, who's here?
21:32:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see janina, +1.650.862.aaaa, Eric, Judy, +1.510.367.aacc
21:32:53 <Zakim> On IRC I see Sean_, RRSAgent, Zakim, janina, silvia, MikeSmith, oedipus_away
21:33:19 <janina> zakim, aacc is John_Foliot
21:33:19 <Zakim> +John_Foliot; got it
21:34:03 <JF> JF has joined #media
21:34:22 <Zakim> +silvia
21:34:37 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
21:34:51 <janina> zakim, [Microsoft] is Frank
21:34:51 <Zakim> +Frank; got it
21:35:31 <Zakim> +??P14
21:35:58 <Zakim> -John_Foliot
21:35:59 <JF> zakim, P14 is Bob
21:35:59 <Zakim> sorry, JF, I do not recognize a party named 'P14'
21:36:10 <Zakim> +John_Foliot
21:36:16 <JF> zakim, ??P14 is Bob
21:36:16 <Zakim> +Bob; got it
21:36:44 <frankolivier> frankolivier has joined #media
21:37:50 <MikeSmith_> MikeSmith_ has joined #media
21:38:05 <janina> Judy: Do we have all proposals sufficiently elaborated and we're now focussing on #4 because we still prefer it? Or just because it's the only one sufficiently elaborated?
21:38:12 <silvia> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Change_Proposals_Summary
21:38:19 <janina> Silvia: OK, Let me summarize ...
21:38:49 <janina> Silvia: We do have a summary page. Creating it required a more in depth look at Ian's proposal.
21:39:26 <janina> Silvia: I put my concerns in a section called '"Silvia's Notes"
21:39:51 <janina> Silvia: So, I'm asking what our opinions are
21:40:31 <janina> JF: I'm noting you mention some attributes are missing, i.e. seeking. Can you say more?
21:40:53 <janina> Silvia: Yes, jumping to a specific time, either via user control or via js
21:41:30 <janina> Eric: The attribute relates to whether a seek is in progress, and don't think it's particularly helpful\
21:41:48 <janina> Eric: We can certainly seek via the controller
21:43:11 <janina> Silvia: We have had additional discussion since Monday, including responses from Ian. There are other attribs I'm no longer looking for
21:43:44 <janina> Silvia: These are details on this proposal.
21:44:01 <janina> Silvia: If we decide to go with this proposal, we want to make sure the details are consistent with what we want.
21:44:19 <janina> Frank: Think this is a good way to proceed. I have some concerns about complexity, though.
21:44:28 <janina> JF: Any deal breaks so far?
21:44:32 <janina> Frank: With #4?
21:45:01 <janina> Sean: A few issues around exclusive, but mostly OK
21:45:23 <janina> Frank: Yes, I think it maps well to what we have. We need small bug fixes, not major rewrites.
21:45:43 <janina> Silvia: May I propose a way forward?
21:46:13 <janina> Silvia: If we're all happy--Frank, Eric, Sean, myself--can we pull our proposals and work on fixing #4?
21:46:35 <janina> Frank: Yes. My proposal was around exposing audio tracks. #4 does that.
21:46:42 <janina> Silvia: Yes, it incorporates yours.
21:47:07 <janina> Sean: I'm also prepared to withdraw mine. I believe I can achieve what I need with #4
21:47:38 <janina> Eric: I also agree. Though, I think we need to make it clear that there's more work to do to make $4 sufficient.
21:48:01 <janina> s/$/#/
21:48:26 <janina> JF: I've not seen feedback from Opera. Anyone know how Phillip is with this?
21:48:35 <silvia> zakim, mute me
21:48:35 <Zakim> silvia should now be muted
21:48:37 <janina> Eric: My impression is generally supportive, based on list mail.
21:49:23 <janina> JF: Other question is that we continue to indicate status on this. Can we report that we are coalescing around #4, though it needs additional work?
21:49:59 <janina> Eric: I think it makes sense for the authors of the other proposals to send email saying that.
21:50:58 <janina> Judy: I don't think it hurts to communicate additionally.
21:51:18 <janina> q+ To say that I will include in my report Thursday
21:51:49 <silvia> zakim, unmute me
21:51:49 <Zakim> silvia should no longer be muted
21:52:37 <janina> Judy: We should also make sure to check with other key people.
21:53:28 <janina> Silvia: Think we should summarize the sticky points in an email to the list. Don't think we need to withdraw our proposals just yet.
21:54:28 <silvia> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextTrack_Issues
21:55:27 <silvia> zakim, mute me
21:55:27 <Zakim> silvia should now be muted
21:56:04 <judy> judy has joined #media
21:56:08 <janina> JF: Sean, anything to discuss?
21:56:17 <janina> Sean: Most of my issues ongoing in email ...
21:56:28 <janina> Sean: It all seems to be coming together
21:56:55 <janina> Eric: I'd like us to discuss audio/video/text tracks issue
21:56:58 <frankolivier> Sound is dropping out for me on the phone; Anybody else having this issue?
21:57:19 <janina> Eric: I probably don't have the terms off the top of my head right now ... inband, exclusive, etc
21:57:33 <Zakim> -Frank
21:58:00 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
21:58:08 <janina> Eric: Some have proposed a single "tracks" attrib
21:58:49 <frankolivier> Zakim, Microsoft is Frank
21:58:49 <Zakim> +Frank; got it
21:59:05 <janina> Sean: Understand you can have one video in the track, but doesn't prevent you from other videos, you need to use multiple video elements to get at them
21:59:28 <janina> Sean: My preference would be for a single API to find them, identify them, and switch them on and off
21:59:40 <janina> Sean: That was our TPAC approach, and I think it was simpler.
21:59:51 <janina> Sean: Currently, it's all there, but too complex
21:59:54 <janina> Eric: Agree
22:00:14 <janina> Eric: Don't think exclusive on video makes sense
22:00:33 <frankolivier> q+
22:00:38 <janina> Eric: Agree that's it's useful to have a single way to identify everything
22:00:49 <janina> Frank: How does this concept work?
22:01:24 <janina> Eric: Like on the element restricted to text tracks, but able to enumerate all video and audio
22:01:55 <janina> Frank: Is that a big change?
22:02:09 <janina> Eric: Yes, it would cut down from 3 to 1 the attribs on media element
22:02:59 <janina> JF: How do we move that forward?
22:03:31 <janina> Eric: We need to discuss it further in email. Either we convince everyone else--or not. But, if we agree, and it's not in the spec, then we need a change proposal on this.
22:03:54 <janina> JF: Is there a bug filed on this?
22:04:05 <janina> Eric: No, but don't think it makes sense to file a bug at this point.
22:04:19 <janina> JF: My concern is timing
22:04:54 <judy> q+
22:05:05 <janina> q-
22:05:12 <frankolivier> q-
22:05:41 <janina> Judy: I think you're asking about process specifically with respect to multitrack?
22:05:46 <Zakim> -silvia
22:06:27 <janina> Judy: I think a number of people consider this critical for last call
22:07:53 <janina> Judy: All I can say is keep refining the proposal, and let's not focus on process particularly
22:08:20 <janina> JF: So, we cut from 3 to 1, but add one other?
22:08:22 <janina> Eric: Yes
22:08:42 <janina> Eric: Though we seem to agree we can live with what's there now, though we prefer the change we're proposing
22:09:43 <janina> Sean: Understand what we have is sufficient on this to take us through the April 22 deadline. If we go further, we do it as a CP
22:09:51 <janina> Eric: Yes, it's a polishing thing
22:10:03 <janina> Judy: Now I'm confused ....
22:10:10 <judy> s/proposal/proposal, and on expedited work on this/ 
22:10:42 <janina> Judy: Might we not end up with something we're unhappy with?
22:11:07 <janina> Judy: In other words, why not offer it ahead of April 22
22:12:03 <janina> Eric: It's perhaps not worth falling on our sword
22:12:25 <judy> s/something that we're unhappy with/something that would break a bit when it's cleaned up in the next LCWD/
22:12:43 <judy> q+
22:12:57 <janina> Eric: I think we should push on this, but we're OK either way
22:14:46 <janina> Judy: If not accepted early, wouldn't it break implementations if tried later?
22:14:50 <janina> Eric: Yes
22:15:40 <janina> Judy: So it's worthwhile to work hard on getting an optimal proposal now
22:15:50 <janina> Eric: Yes, which is why we need to take this discussion back on list
22:16:34 <janina> JF: Not on our agenda, but we have Silvia's wiki page on text format and multiple format ...
22:17:04 <janina> JF: I was expecting this is a non issue? That we would see support for multiple formats in browsers? Yes, no?
22:17:24 <janina> Eric: Are you asking if we need to define a single (or multiple) format?
22:17:51 <janina> JF: I got the impression we don't need to specify a file format in track?
22:18:16 <janina> JF: I'm unclear where the discussion is on this,  this
22:18:37 <janina> Sean: The issue is whether or not track elements supports src as a sub, so you cannot put src inside it.
22:18:43 <silvia> silvia has joined #media
22:18:54 <janina> Sean: So future compatibility, etc., I believe we need to allow a source selection algorithm
22:19:04 <janina> Sean: We did agree to take this up outside of Issue-152
22:19:48 <janina> JF: So should we be taking this up? Or ddo we finish 152 first?
22:20:08 <janina> Sean: We should finish 152, but I don't see anyone disagreeing on multiple formats
22:20:15 <janina> JF: So is it OK as an LC issue?
22:20:37 <janina> JF: So we can still submit a CP ...
22:20:55 <janina> Sean: I'd like to see that
22:21:07 <janina> JF: I would as well. Anyone disagree?
22:21:11 <janina> Eric: I agree with it
22:21:15 <janina> Frank: I also
22:21:18 <silvia> I also
22:21:19 <janina> Bob: Also I
22:21:34 <silvia> captured in http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextTrack_Issues for now
22:22:36 <janina> JF: Anyone willing to take this up?
22:22:47 <janina> Sean: Silvia would be the logical person. If not she, I'll do it.
22:23:18 <JF> Silvia, would you be prepared to take that wiki page and advance it to the mailing list as a CP for the spec?
22:23:27 <JF> we seem to have un animity on the proposal on this call
22:23:29 <silvia> Can it wait until we've got issue-152 out the door, so after 22nd or do we want to start this before?
22:24:09 <silvia> in any case, we can put a bug in the tracker
22:24:15 <JF> I think we would like to have this in the last call document, so likely before the 22nd
22:24:35 <Zakim> -John_Foliot
22:25:31 <janina> Judy: Is this a clarification of an existing issue or proposal? I'm concerned this not be seen as something new
22:26:00 <janina> Sean: My understanding is that this part of an old bug of ours that fell out
22:26:17 <Zakim> +John_Foliot
22:26:17 <janina> Sean: So it's a corollary of our actions on this
22:26:25 <judy> s/something new/something new, if it is indeed a clarificationon an existing issue or proposal/
22:27:22 <silvia> do we want to attack all the changes on the wiki page together or just the multiple formats issue on <track> elements?
22:27:56 <janina> Judy: Mainly concerned how this is going to be presented. I'm now understanding we've worked on this before
22:28:13 <Sean_> just the multiple formats issue. And to state that this is part of making the spec format neutral
22:28:18 <janina> Judy: Ian almost got it into the spec? Something like that?
22:29:32 <silvia> Sean: so in your eyes this is a stumbling block on accepting the Controller as a solution for issue-152?
22:29:35 <janina> JF: This was when we were discussing SRT (WebVTT); and TTML, etc
22:29:38 <judy> s/into the spec/into his proposal/
22:29:53 <janina> JF: Our guidance was support them all
22:30:27 <Sean_> No this is unrelated to 152
22:31:11 <JF> Silvia, we are trying to figure out how to ensure we get this: "The proposal is therefore to implement the same mechanism for <track> elements as we have for <audio> and <video> elements: namely to use the <source> element for format selection. "
22:32:42 <janina> Janina: The process point is that this is what we came to a decision on back when we were discussing WebSRT (now VTT) vs TTML, etc. It's not new, but the spec isn't saying how to get it right
22:32:48 <silvia> hmm, so do we have another bug that we could attach this so it is a pre-LC? I think it may be hard to still push this in before the deadline...
22:33:08 <Sean_> [Bug 11207] Make track element additions technology neutral
22:34:38 <Sean_> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11207
22:36:18 <janina> Sean: When we took out the specific references to WebSRT, nothing replaced that text to include the ability to do this.
22:36:31 <janina> Judy: Thus, the bug isn't actually fixed
22:38:21 <judy> Judy: when the srt references were taken out at our request, it left a gap on ability to express multiple format; therefore a bug that is marked as "resolved fixed" no longer is. we offer the following correction to that gap.
22:39:42 <Bob> Bob has joined #media
22:40:52 <janina> But, that would mean post last call
22:41:20 <silvia> so for the record: I'd be happy to just have it added as a bug right now and start discussions on list - I think we may be able to resolve it in this way, too
22:41:40 <Zakim> -John_Foliot
22:41:44 <Zakim> -Frank
22:41:46 <Zakim> - +1.650.862.aaaa
22:41:47 <Zakim> -Bob
22:41:48 <Zakim> -Judy
22:41:50 <Zakim> -janina
22:41:52 <janina> zakim, bye
22:41:52 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were janina, +1.650.862.aaaa, +44.154.558.aabb, Judy, +1.510.367.aacc, Eric, John_Foliot, silvia, Frank, Bob
22:41:52 <Zakim> Zakim has left #media
22:41:57 <silvia> yes, it would mean post LC, but it may just get support from everyone because it stops prefetching
22:41:58 <silvia> ups :)
22:42:00 <janina> rrsagent, make minutes
22:42:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/13-media-minutes.html janina
22:45:54 <judy> judy has joined #media
22:48:00 <Bob> Bob has left #media
22:51:46 <silvia1> silvia1 has joined #media
23:06:21 <judy> judy has joined #media
23:50:50 <judy> judy has joined #media