09:57:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #mediafrag
09:57:42 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/23-mediafrag-irc
09:57:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
09:57:44 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #mediafrag
09:57:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be IA_MFWG
09:57:46 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see IA_MFWG()5:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
09:57:46 <trackbot> Meeting: Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
09:57:46 <trackbot> Date: 23 November 2011
09:58:10 <raphael> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2011Nov/0057.html
09:58:25 <raphael> RRSAgent, make logs public
09:58:32 <raphael> RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:58:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/23-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
09:58:45 <raphael> zakim, code?
09:58:45 <Zakim> the conference code is 3724 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), raphael
10:00:15 <Zakim> IA_MFWG()5:00AM has now started
10:00:24 <Zakim> + +61.2.801.2.aaaa
10:00:32 <silvia> zakim, aaaa is me
10:00:32 <Zakim> +silvia; got it
10:01:23 <doublec> I'm here but not on phone, sorry
10:01:57 <raphael> Regrets: Erik
10:02:10 <Zakim> + +33.4.93.00.aabb
10:02:15 <tomayac> tomayac has joined #mediafrag
10:02:24 <raphael> Present: Silvia, Chris (irc), Raphael, Thomas, Davy
10:02:49 <raphael> zakim, aabb is me
10:02:49 <Zakim> +raphael; got it
10:03:02 <Zakim> +Yves
10:03:10 <Zakim> -raphael
10:03:35 <Zakim> + +1.404.978.aacc
10:03:41 <Zakim> +Raphael
10:03:49 <tomayac> zakim, +1.404.978.aacc is me
10:03:49 <Zakim> +tomayac; got it
10:04:06 <raphael> RRSAgent, draft minutes
10:04:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/23-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
10:04:15 <raphael> zakim, who is here?
10:04:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see silvia, Yves, tomayac, Raphael
10:04:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see tomayac, Zakim, RRSAgent, raphael, silvia, doublec, foolip, rektide, trackbot, Yves
10:04:25 <raphael> Present+ Yves
10:04:42 <raphael> Topic: 1. Admin
10:05:14 <silvia> zakim, mute me
10:05:14 <Zakim> silvia should now be muted
10:05:33 <raphael> Next Tuesday, the specification will be published as a CR
10:05:38 <silvia> yay!
10:05:45 <davy> davy has joined #mediafrag
10:06:05 <doublec> great!
10:06:11 <raphael> Raphael: the group will be closed at the end of the year
10:06:45 <Zakim> + +329331aadd
10:07:16 <raphael> ... we need to satisfy the exit criteria of CR, i.e. getting 2 implementations of all features to move forward
10:07:50 <raphael> ... Goal: we jhave 
10:08:21 <raphael> ... about 10 test cases to approve for the UA
10:08:32 <raphael> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases.html
10:08:42 <foolip> Will we consider polyfills implementations, or only native browser/server implementations?
10:08:56 <tomayac> hooray for polyfills ;-)
10:09:19 <raphael> not only browser implementations, but all, including polyfills
10:09:44 <raphael> Thomas work should be included in an implementation report
10:09:46 <silvia> foolip: it's the W3C :-)
10:09:47 <foolip> You'd never get away with that if it were for any other browser feature, say document.querySelector.
10:10:10 <silvia> foolip: that's the HTML WG :-)
10:10:34 <raphael> Thomas: I think they should be a valid implementation
10:10:50 <raphael> Raphael: how much time you have to work on an implementation report?
10:10:56 <foolip> I think polyfills are great and useful, and respect tomayac's work, but don't think it's acceptable.
10:11:46 <foolip> In other words, if there are any features which don't have 2 implementation not counting polyfills, they should be dropped from the spec.
10:12:04 <raphael> why don't you want to count the polyfills Philip ? I don't get this ...
10:12:07 <foolip> Specifically #track cannot be done with a polyfill yet
10:12:11 <tomayac> http://tomayac.com/mediafragments/implementationtests.html
10:12:13 <raphael> they are absolutely valid implementations
10:13:10 <foolip> The point of requiring implementations is to prove that it's possible to implement and ship. polyfills don't prove that, they don't have to deal with all of the internal issues you'd find in a native implementation
10:14:12 <tomayac> foolip, i fully agree
10:14:21 <raphael> ACTION: Davy starting from http://tomayac.com/mediafragments/implementationtests.html to generate a EARL report
10:14:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-241 - Starting from http://tomayac.com/mediafragments/implementationtests.html to generate a EARL report [on Davy Van Deursen - due 2011-11-30].
10:14:24 <tomayac> we're discussing your points
10:15:13 <tomayac> foolip, raphael postponed the discussion to later in the call
10:15:26 <raphael> Topic: UA Test Cases
10:15:28 <raphael> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases.html
10:15:42 <raphael> Only the reviewed test cases are used in the implementation report
10:15:50 <davy> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/results/ua/SynoteMediaFragmentPlayer-report
10:15:52 <doublec> an example of an issue might be hitting the 'end' time in temporal fragments. The HTML media API doesn't provide a way to immediately stop playback on an end time which a polyfill will have trouble doing.
10:15:53 <raphael> Davy: no, the non reviewed test cases are also used
10:16:19 <doublec> whereas a native api can get to the low level (hopefully) to do it
10:17:03 <raphael> Davy: the individual implementation reports contain all test cases
10:17:13 <raphael> ... but the global report only take the reviewed test cases
10:17:53 <raphael> Raphael: the unreviewed TC starts at TC0095 until TC0102
10:17:58 <raphael> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases.html
10:18:13 <raphael> ... 8 test cases
10:19:41 <foolip> doublec, does Firefox support stopping at the (exact) end time?
10:19:52 <doublec> I would argue that a testcase that uses smpte on a webm file doesn't seem to make sense, given that webm is not fixed framerate
10:20:01 <doublec> (referring to tc0100-ua and friends)
10:20:09 <doublec> foolip: it's close but not exact
10:20:13 <foolip> I agree, it seems to me there are no implementations of smpte
10:20:16 <silvia> q+
10:20:18 <doublec> foolip: and depends on audio buffering on platforms
10:20:21 <davy> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases#TC0095-UA
10:20:23 <raphael> ACTION: Davy to contact Jack to get media resources to test TC0099 and TC0100 
10:20:23 <trackbot> Created ACTION-242 - Contact Jack to get media resources to test TC0099 and TC0100  [on Davy Van Deursen - due 2011-11-30].
10:20:28 <silvia> zakim, unmute me
10:20:28 <Zakim> silvia should no longer be muted
10:20:30 <foolip> doublec, fair enough :)
10:20:45 <doublec> foolip: which is why I knew that was a sticky point :)
10:21:18 <foolip> doublec, does currentTime lie or will it overshoot somewhat?
10:22:13 <tomayac> currentTime is best effort i'd say
10:22:33 <doublec> foolip it's supposed to be accurate but one of our audio backends cheats and only updates it after a blocking audio write on a thread is completed
10:22:47 <doublec> foolip: so is limited to the granularity of the amount of that write (this is linux)
10:23:11 <doublec> foolip: on android it's a complete guess
10:23:15 <erik> erik has joined #mediafrag
10:23:23 <foolip> doublec, ok, I won't object on the basis of that, seems like a QoI issue
10:23:29 <doublec> yeah
10:23:36 <tomayac> timeupdate has no guarantees at all
10:23:50 <doublec> right, timeupdate is often 250ms 
10:24:10 <tomayac> so frame-level addressing is completely impossible
10:24:14 <silvia> I have a problem with failing on all non-matching SMPTE formats
10:24:18 <davy> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases#TC0099-UA
10:24:30 <erik> rrsagent, draft minutes
10:24:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/23-mediafrag-minutes.html erik
10:24:37 <doublec> tomayac: you can get better granuality doing a setInterval and checking currentTime
10:24:46 <doublec> tomayac: depending on implementation
10:24:49 <tomayac> yepp, but again w/o guarantees
10:24:53 <doublec> right
10:24:57 <raphael> Chair: Raphael
10:25:11 <raphael> Present+ Philip (irc)
10:25:19 <tomayac> so all that seems to make sense (and this is the only thing i've seen people use) is 1s granualarity
10:25:48 <erik> Present+ Erik
10:26:32 <tomayac> <video> abstracts away the codec details, so can't get down to frame-level, no notion of key frames, etc. and that's a good thing imho :-)
10:27:04 <silvia> OK, I can live with failing on non-matching SMPTE formats
10:27:07 <raphael> Davy: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases#TC0095-UA
10:27:28 <silvia> I'm hoping there won't be much use of SMPTE anyway
10:27:37 <raphael> ok, and reviewed
10:27:45 <raphael> davy: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases#TC0096-UA
10:28:55 <tomayac> silvia, all i've seen people use is npt, and all with seconds
10:29:03 <raphael> ok, and reviewed (the media resource has indeed those 2 tracks)
10:29:15 <raphael> Davy: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases#TC0097-UA
10:29:24 <silvia> tomayac: yes, me too, and I've seen live streaming ppl ask for clock, but not smpte
10:29:25 <tomayac> i normalize npt in non-second format to seconds, which makes it easier w/ html5 video
10:29:39 <raphael> ok, and reviewed
10:29:49 <raphael> Davy: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases#TC0098-UA
10:30:33 <raphael> ok, and reviewed
10:30:52 <tomayac> imho, whatever currentTime accepts, dictates what we should do in practice (except for live streams of course)
10:31:10 <raphael> Silvia: how the UA determines that the fragment is outside?
10:31:22 <raphael> Davy: with the decoding pipeline, the UA knows the resolution of the video
10:32:01 <raphael> ... I will write in the HTML what is the resolution of the media resource (already written in the rdf file)
10:32:04 <silvia> can we add that resolution to the example so it's clear it's outside?
10:32:08 <silvia> thx
10:32:47 <raphael> Davy: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases#TC0101-UA
10:33:24 <raphael> ... in fact 101 is incomplete since there is no name in the webm resource
10:33:44 <raphael> ... we have to create such a resource
10:33:50 <raphael> Davy: how can I create this resource
10:34:03 <doublec> webm doesn't provide the ability to do that
10:34:07 <raphael> Silvia: using mkv merge ?
10:34:14 <doublec> afaik
10:34:18 <silvia> WebM chaptering: http://matroska.org/technical/specs/chapters/index.html
10:34:24 <doublec> that's matroska
10:34:27 <doublec> is that included in webm?
10:34:29 <silvia> well, it's Matroska but would work in webm
10:34:33 <doublec> nope
10:34:43 <doublec> if it's not in the webm spec, it's not supported
10:34:46 <silvia> not per spec, but with most tools :)
10:35:09 <Zakim> +tomayac.a
10:35:19 <silvia> so, also, there is work happening on putting WebVTT into WebM, so that would likely be the better way in future
10:35:43 <raphael> Raphael: 102 has the same problem
10:35:52 <raphael> Davy: I will color the table in red
10:36:45 <Yves> 1/me taht would be great!
10:37:00 <Yves> s/1\/me taht would be great!//
10:37:49 <raphael> Silvia: at some point, OGG and WebM should have WebVTT so chapter names
10:37:57 <raphael> ... in the future, those test cases would be plausible
10:38:02 <raphael> ... hard to make the media resources now
10:38:29 <silvia> and Apple also wants to put WebVTT into MP4 tracks
10:38:40 <raphael> Raphael: if no test case for the ID dimension and no implemenati
10:38:43 <silvia> right now you could use quicktime chapter markers in MP4 if you wanted to
10:39:02 <raphael> s/implemenati/implementation, then this feature will be removed from the spec
10:39:39 <Yves> in CR we document what might be removed if not implemented
10:39:42 <Yves> or not implementable
10:40:22 <davy> Silvia, sounds good, I will try QuickTime to create such a MP4
10:44:24 <raphael> ACTION: Silvia to search for a media resource that contains a chapter name
10:44:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-243 - Search for a media resource that contains a chapter name [on Silvia Pfeiffer - due 2011-11-30].
10:44:42 <raphael> Topic: 3. Status of the Implementation Report
10:44:53 <silvia> I made a point that we should not remove features from the specification that cannot now be demonstrated because we don't have the file formats for the Web yet
10:44:57 <davy> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-impl/
10:45:19 <silvia> If such features cannot go into REC, at least a TR or CR should continue to exist with these extra features
10:45:28 <raphael> Davy: we will have 4 different implm
10:45:37 <silvia> zakim, mute me
10:45:37 <Zakim> silvia should now be muted
10:45:37 <raphael> s/implm/implementations with Thomas
10:46:28 <raphael> Davy: currently, 3 levels: passed, failed and not applicable meaning not yet implemented
10:46:37 <raphael> ... should the not applicable be just failed ones?
10:47:08 <Yves> having a new status 'not implemented' might be the best
10:47:18 <raphael> Thomas: make a distinction between the implemented but failed and the not implemented
10:47:28 <silvia> agree
10:48:19 <raphael> Davy: are we the first group to face this problem? In EARL there is not yet implemented status available
10:49:38 <erik> q+
10:49:44 <raphael> Raphael: I suggest to add a paragraph in the report to explain what Passed, Failed and Not Applicable
10:49:50 <raphael> zakim, ack silvia
10:49:50 <Zakim> unmuting silvia
10:49:51 <Zakim> I see erik on the speaker queue
10:49:56 <raphael> zakim, ack erik
10:49:56 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
10:49:56 <silvia> zakim, mute me
10:49:58 <Zakim> silvia should now be muted
10:50:49 <raphael> Erik: all features which are weakly or not implemented should be marked at risk
10:51:02 <raphael> ... this is the case for the clock unit for specifying time for example
10:51:51 <raphael> Raphael: I'm going to Davy and Chris, is clock something you plan to cover in your implementation?
10:52:01 <silvia> you need a streaming server for the clock unit, realistically
10:52:10 <doublec> raphael: no plans at this stage
10:52:13 <raphael> Davy: we do that on the server
10:52:26 <silvia> we could ask Thomas Vander Stichele about that - he has previously implemented such a feature
10:52:37 <silvia> there was a thread on our mailing list at one stage
10:53:20 <doublec> raphael: mainly because we don't support any video playback that'd make it useful
10:53:38 <doublec> raphael: if we were to add such, I'd look at supporting it
10:53:42 <raphael> Could you respond to this old thread, silvia,  and re-activate this oc
10:53:49 <raphael> s/oc/contact?
10:54:20 <silvia> let me try...
10:55:06 <raphael> Topic: 4. AOB
10:55:44 <raphael> Erik: we had 3 actions from yesterday
10:56:00 <raphael> ... 2 minor edits ... done by Raphael
10:56:06 <raphael> ... a last one for the WAI WG
10:56:42 <raphael> ... Silvia, the track dimension is important for the a11y community, the mgt suggest to write a mail to the WAI WG to tell them this feature is at risk in Media fragment
10:56:58 <silvia> zakim, unmute me
10:56:58 <Zakim> silvia should no longer be muted
10:58:29 <raphael> Raphael: how important is this feature (track) for WAI?
10:58:51 <raphael> Silvia: it is not that much WAI at the moment, but more the HTML WG
10:59:16 <raphael> ... the track element in the media API
10:59:35 <doublec> right, we need the track HTML stuff to be implemented before doing the media fragment track support
11:00:13 <raphael> Silvia: the track element is a textual track, it is for WebVTT
11:00:40 <raphael> Thomas: latest Chromium has track support ... not sure for which format
11:00:58 <raphael> Raphael: why browsers need to support the track element to support the media fragment track?
11:01:14 <raphael> Silvia: because we need to expose what are the available tracks
11:01:21 <doublec> silvia: I was referring to http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#media-resources-with-multiple-media-tracks
11:03:17 <doublec> raphael: when I wrote 'we' I really meant 'I'. And I mean the person working on track support needs to do it before I work on adding media fragment track support (assuming they don't)
11:03:29 <doublec> raphael: (in firefox that is)
11:03:58 <Zakim> -silvia
11:04:08 <silvia> I agree, that's what I was pointing out: we need #track for the multitrack API in HTML5
11:04:12 <foolip> Opera is similar, we couldn't support #track without first doing all the hard work to support the VideoTrack/AudioTrack APIs
11:04:20 <raphael> Raphael: my question Chris is ... assuming the UA know what are the tracks available in a given media resource, how much implementation is to enable the selection of one of the tracks?
11:05:14 <doublec> raphael: I don't know yet - we don't expose tracks at all
11:05:49 <silvia> example is in http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#assigning-a-media-controller-declaratively
11:07:11 <raphael> ACTION: Erik to mail implementers the likelihood to get the remaining features implemented in the coming weeks
11:07:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-244 - Mail implementers the likelihood to get the remaining features implemented in the coming weeks [on Erik Mannens - due 2011-11-30].
11:07:23 <Zakim> -Yves
11:07:25 <raphael> meeting adjourned
11:07:29 <Zakim> -Davy
11:07:47 <raphael> RRSAgent, make minutes
11:07:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/23-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
11:12:17 <davy> davy has left #mediafrag
11:13:02 <Zakim> -Raphael
11:14:31 <raphael> ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
11:14:32 <raphael> RRSAgent, make minutes
11:14:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/23-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
11:17:30 <erik> erik has joined #mediafrag
12:33:41 <Zakim> -tomayac
12:38:42 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, tomayac.a, in IA_MFWG()5:00AM
12:38:44 <Zakim> IA_MFWG()5:00AM has ended
12:38:46 <Zakim> Attendees were +61.2.801.2.aaaa, silvia, +33.4.93.00.aabb, raphael, Yves, tomayac, +329331aadd, Davy
13:01:33 <Zakim> Zakim has left #mediafrag