W3C

- DRAFT -

HTML Media Task Force Teleconference

05 Nov 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
[Microsoft], markw, pladd, Aaron_Colwell, adrianba, pal, BobLund, AWK, ddorwin
Regrets
Chair
Aaron Colwell
Scribe
Adrian Bateman

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 05 November 2013

<scribe> ScribeNick: adrianba

<scribe> Scribe: Adrian Bateman

Roll call, introductions and selection of scribe

acolwell: done

Previous meeting minutes

acolwell: posted

Review of action items and issues

<acolwell> https://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/43

status of bugs

acolwell: as of this morning 3 open

Unresolved Last Call bugs

Bug 23169 - reconsider the jitter video quality metrics again

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23169

acolwell: lots of discussion - aaron can live with won't fixing this
... believe paul contacted dsinger who said he would contact the appropriate people
... not heard anything

markw: i think one of the original comments was about microsecond granularity
... so i think we have to consider this rather than won't fixing the whole issue
... current spec seems infeasible - perhaps say as accurate as one refresh interval

acolwell: i could propose text - should we change micro to milli

jdsmith: we talked about maybe 1 millisecond resolution - realistically refresh rates will be in multiple millisecond

markw: units could still be microseconds - don't think we could say millisecond - think it should be in terms of frame interval

acolwell: mark, could you propose some text?

markw: okay?

acolwell: any other questions on this one?

adrianba: mark are you okay to provide text?

markw: yes

Bug 23441 - Establish an MSE bytestream format registry

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23441

acolwell: i checked in a change for this yesterday - made changes so MSE doesn't refer to a specific format
... need to do another pass - consider this done though - new bugs if there are other tweaks needed

adrianba: two issues
... 1) not sure if we lost the sense of "you don't have to support this format but if you do you should do it this way"
... 2) we have to figure out how to publish the break-out documents - perhaps as W3C Notes
... or maybe something less formal
... not a major problem but something we need to think through

acolwell: yes, not sure how we will regulate additions

adrianba: i think we need people to look through these changes and give feedback

acolwell: agree - i started with glenn's key system document removing the tricky parts of key systems
... it's bare bones right now
... might need more structure for media formats
... the other thing is whether we need different editors so the people who care about those formats have more ownership

pal: i'm reading the proposed text - it says it is the authoritative source of formats
... if it isn't listed should it not work?

acolwell: we can't stop that but people who accept a format should register the format so we get interop
... you can do what you want with MSE but if you want interop then you should register

pal: the registry doesn't say what implementations support

acolwell: yes, you have to use the API to determine that

pal: right, i think the sentence is misleading because it suggests that if it is not there at can't be implemented
... someone could support something not listed and still find out with isTypeSupported

acolwell: yes, but that's not ideal - rather that they filed a bug with proposed text
... ACTION-43 is closed

Bug 23558 - Requirement to ignore additional top-level boxes in ISO BMFF limits forward compatibility.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23558

acolwell: mark and i responded - don't think we've come to a conclusion yet

<markw> I just suggested we close WONT FIX

markw: i think the existing text is fine - if i come up with better text then we can look later

acolwell: now that iso is not in the MSE spec it technically shouldn't be a blocker
... resolving the bug right now WONTFIX

close ACTION-45

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-45.

Bug 23661 - video stream requirement would restrict sign-language use cases

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23661

acolwell: resolved WORKSFORME this morning because we're not restricting anything

close ACTION-46

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-46.

<pal> Proposed text: "The byte stream format registry provides a mapping between return values of canPlayType() and byte stream format specifications."

Bug 23663 - Section 2.4.4 is not clear about whether it runs while seeking

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23663

adrianba: was planning to find a bug to dup this to indicating that we wanted someone to work on a primer

acolwell: i will make the text change i indicated
... i will make the text change today - simple one line change

adrianba: so we'll close 23663 later today and then we just need text for the jitter issue
... if mark can add the text for 23169 to the bug and we give people a couple of days to review
... then we can add to the spec and close
... i think we've met the requirement of contacting people who reported issues using Bugzilla

Exiting from Last Call

acolwell: i'm not an expert here - not sure if i can lead this

adrianba: i can talk through this
... [discussion of LC to CR process]

acolwell: any other questions?

pal: i suggested some text in 23441

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23441#c2

<pal> The statement "the byte stream format registry is the authoritative source for byte stream format specifications that can be accepted by a SourceBuffer" implies that implementations cannot support a byte stream unless it is listed in the registry. Per the call earlier, this does not sound like it is the objective.

<pal> Suggest instead: "The byte stream format registry provides a mapping between return values of canPlayType() and byte stream format specifications."

acolwell: we would need to tweak this - these are values for isTypeSupported

pal: my point is to make a statement of fact instead of something normative
... if you want to see what is the defining spec for a particular format go see this registry

acolwell: part of the reason why i was using authoritative source text was to try to have the weight of saying you have to implement it this way
... adrian's comments suggest i wasn't successful
... so i will try again to address both your concerns

pal: thank you

Any other business

acolwell: nothing

<pal> see you next week

Adjournment

acolwell: i think we're done for today

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013/11/05 16:43:11 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/iess/issue/
Found ScribeNick: adrianba
Found Scribe: Adrian Bateman
Default Present: [Microsoft], markw, pladd, Aaron_Colwell, adrianba, pal, BobLund, AWK, ddorwin
Present: [Microsoft] markw pladd Aaron_Colwell adrianba pal BobLund AWK ddorwin
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Oct/0043.html
Found Date: 05 Nov 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/11/05-html-media-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]