14:51:06 RRSAgent has joined #webtv 14:51:06 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/09/01-webtv-irc 14:51:08 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:51:08 Zakim has joined #webtv 14:51:10 Zakim, this will be 14:51:10 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot 14:51:11 Meeting: Web and TV Interest Group Teleconference 14:51:11 Date: 01 September 2011 14:51:26 Zakim, this will be WebTV 14:51:26 ok, francois; I see UW_WebTVIG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes 14:51:39 Chair: Clarke 14:51:42 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/Agenda_Telco_1st_September_2011 14:54:42 kaz has joined #webtv 14:54:55 zakim, code? 14:54:55 the conference code is 93288 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), kaz 14:55:02 zakim, call kazuyuki-617 14:55:02 ok, kaz; the call is being made 14:55:03 UW_WebTVIG()11:00AM has now started 14:55:04 +Kazuyuki 14:55:49 +??P10 14:56:15 zakim, ??P10 is Steve_Wright 14:56:15 +Steve_Wright; got it 14:57:15 duncanr has joined #webtv 14:58:20 +??P31 14:58:33 zakim, ??P31 is Duncan 14:58:33 +Duncan; got it 14:59:01 igarashi has joined #webtv 14:59:32 +francois 14:59:37 zakim, mute me 14:59:48 francois should now be muted 15:01:07 +??P67 15:01:13 zakim, ??P67 is Clarke 15:01:51 +Clarke; got it 15:04:46 +??P20 15:04:49 present: Kazuyuki, Steve_Wright, Duncan, Francois 15:04:58 zakim, ??P20 is Igarashi 15:05:22 +Igarashi; got it 15:05:37 BobL has joined #webtv 15:05:41 present+ Igarashi, Bob 15:05:42 +??P18 15:05:45 Scribe: francois 15:05:55 zakim, ??P18 is Bob 15:06:00 Clarke: only one item on the agenda, review of content protection use cases. 15:06:04 +Bob; got it 15:06:07 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Aug/0169.html 15:06:12 ... Several questions and comments around scope and definitions on DRM. 15:06:15 ... We'll discuss that. 15:06:23 ... Anything else to add? 15:06:48 Topic: TV services media transport mapping (ISSUE-39) 15:06:48 ISSUE 39:http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/TV_services_transport_mapping 15:07:05 Clarke: raised by Bob several weeks ago. 15:07:09 ... mapping table. 15:07:19 + +46.1.07.19.aaaa 15:07:40 +Russell 15:07:54 ... The basic idea of the use case is mapping existing traditional TV services that TV actors and potentially regulators might want to have, to the video element. 15:08:13 zakim, aaaa is Jan 15:08:13 +Jan; got it 15:08:27 ... Anyone who would object to accepting this use case? 15:08:48 rberkoff has joined #webtv 15:08:53 + +1.908.848.aabb 15:09:01 Igarashi: Let me clarify. The use case assumes that Web page provider is different from content provider? 15:09:09 Bob: That's one of the motivations of the use case, yes. 15:09:29 Can I get issue # (just joined) 15:09:37 39 15:09:40 ISSUE-39? 15:09:40 ISSUE-39 -- TV Services and Media Transport Mapping -- raised 15:09:40 http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/39 15:09:41 +Narm 15:10:11 Bob: For some services, even if they are the same, you still need to define how to translate the info at the application level. 15:10:44 ... We don't know in advance what transport layer may be used and how this data might be transported. 15:10:44 narm_gadiraju has joined #webtv 15:11:36 mav has joined #webtv 15:11:37 ... For in-band tracks, that mapping is done by user agents. The user agent has to recognize the data and builds the DOM objects related to the tracks and fill it with info. 15:12:02 dcorvoysier has joined #webtv 15:12:07 Jan: My assumption is that the UA has some capability of that type. Some way, we need to document the mapping. 15:12:13 No. Just dialing in now 15:12:34 +Mark_Vickers 15:12:37 ... Personal opinion: for W3C it may be tricky to define interoperability of topics that sit outside of W3C. 15:12:59 ... There might be organizations that have that expertise. 15:13:46 +Cecile_Marc 15:13:52 Bob: Couple of comments. When you look at the current HTML5 draft, section that refers to textable sourcing of inband tracks, you will see that it explicitly references an external spec that will define how this mapping is done. 15:14:14 ... We've got acknowledgment from WhatWG that agree that this mapping needs to be done. 15:14:41 ... Question is whether this can be done in W3C. 15:15:18 Jan: I think it's fundamental that this be done, but from what you tell me, W3C is not entirely agnostic to the source. 15:16:11 ... How would you reflect this mapping? 15:16:31 ... Let's say I take MPEG2-TS component, somehow you need to map them to the track. 15:16:46 Bob: we've been doing most of our work with MPEG2. Audio mapping is a good example. 15:16:47 Zakim, Cecile_Marc is really David_Corvoysier 15:16:47 +David_Corvoysier; got it 15:17:09 ... The mapping would describe how user agents would recognize audio tracks. Regional stuff. 15:17:37 ... And then there's the question for the various types of audio track, how do you assign the "kind" attribute. 15:17:48 ... This particular one is linked to the bug I filed on the HTML5 spec. 15:18:20 ... Today, there's only one kind, and we may need two to do pre-mux. 15:18:39 ... Mapping would precise which kind needs to be specified. 15:19:08 Jan: I did a little diagram to understand the components and identified 7 areas to refine. 15:20:03 Mav: two different directions, one is mapping, the other is more detailed description as you suggest. 15:20:04 Can a link in Issue-39 to the discussion be added. I think that our usual procedure? 15:20:52 Bob: For each one of these boxes, how do you recognize the track format. W3C HTML5 describes how these get exposed to the Web page. 15:22:23 ... HTML5 is silent on format of text track. Depending on transport stream, different things need to be specified. 15:22:32 ... We're in the process of prototyping some of this. 15:22:55 -Russell 15:22:56 Clarke: hearing some discussion on how we might do this, but no objection to accept this as a use case. 15:23:27 Bob: Maybe we need to list a number of requirements. About what is the type of work that needs to be done in the next stage. 15:23:37 +Russell 15:23:40 Clarke: yes, use cases first, then requirements. 15:23:52 Bob: I have identified what I think needs to be standardized. 15:24:42 issue-18? 15:24:42 ISSUE-18 -- Video tag support of MPEG2-TS -- raised 15:24:42 http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/18 15:24:58 Jan: in ISSUE-18, I touched upon MPEG2-TS, may need to reformulated in the light of the discussion here. 15:25:11 +??P9 15:25:25 Clarke: yes, would be very useful as we try to extract requirements. 15:25:38 Bob: Jan, it looks to me that we should merge these two use cases. 15:25:42 Juhani has joined #webtv 15:26:02 Jan: Yes, that was my purpose. I did not think W3C would be the right place for that discussion. 15:26:18 Clarke: may I suggest that Jan and Bob work together and see if they can be merged? 15:26:19 yes, joined 15:26:24 Bob: yes 15:26:32 Jan: yes. 15:26:36 q? 15:27:04 Not a clue? Google voice 15:27:08 zakim, ??P9 is Juhani 15:27:08 +Juhani; got it 15:27:22 Igarashi: comment about previous discussion. 15:27:37 zakim, drop aabb 15:27:37 +1.908.848.aabb is being disconnected 15:27:39 - +1.908.848.aabb 15:27:54 Guess it wasnt me? 15:28:12 ... mapping not restricted to media formats, mapping guidelines would be helpful. 15:28:27 ... Beneficial for W3C to standardize such mapping. 15:28:30 Call didnt drop 15:29:27 Bob: We identified that for metadata tracks, we wanted to track them to expose ad insertion messages, content rating messages. The current HTML5 spec does not provide any information to differentiate between metadata tracks. 15:29:48 ... No way for the JavaScript to tell what's in the metadata track. 15:29:54 ... We raised that to the HTML WG. 15:30:08 present+ Jan, Narm, Mark_Vickers, David_Corvoysier, Russell, Juhani 15:30:23 ... I agree that it's not clear whether W3C should do that or not. 15:30:34 + +1.908.848.aacc 15:30:54 Mystery caller is back 15:31:11 Igarashi: I think W3C should discuss how to expose this information. 15:32:06 Clarke: one of the points raised that it would be useful to have participation from country orgs, or orgs that we're referencing to alert them on what we intend to do. 15:32:15 Igarashi: That's correct. 15:32:45 ... How to do [??] is out of scope for W3C. 15:33:00 zakim, drop aacc 15:33:00 +1.908.848.aacc is being disconnected 15:33:02 - +1.908.848.aacc 15:33:25 Bob: I agree with that. Different standards. This work would reference these standards. The work that remains to be done is point 3. 15:33:51 ... It's not totally obvious in the case of MPEG DASH that it's been entirely defined how this information flows here. 15:33:52 + +1.908.848.aadd 15:34:04 ... So work here could be to raise a flag that something needs to be done in that space. 15:34:40 ... We could e.g. go back to other orgs and say that something needs to be added. 15:35:22 Igarashi: think there should be more in the motivation section for this use case. 15:35:33 Clarke: maybe you could communicate directly with Bob for that. 15:35:36 Igarashi: ok. 15:35:54 issue 40;http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Delivery_in_distribution_windows 15:36:03 Topic: Content delivery in distribution windows (ISSUE-40) 15:36:29 Clarke: some of the discussion going on on the reflector seems to be concerned that we are trying to standardize on the DRM. 15:36:59 ... That's not the goal, we propose to standardize on the "enable" level to make playback of protected content possible. 15:37:38 ... What we want to enable here is a way to specify parameters that to play a video you need to support some sort of DRM, etc. 15:37:52 +??P16 15:38:05 Bob: Good clarification. No intent for a single DRM. We expect content to be protected with different types of DRM. 15:38:20 ... The idea is to be able to continue to use the