See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 03 December 2013
<scribe> Scribe: joesteele
<paulc> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Dec/0000.html
paulc: objective is to review F2F
and figure next steps
... and review progress
<glenn> AWK is Andrew Kirkpatrick (Adobe)
<scribe> done
<paulc> F2F minutes: http://www.w3.org/2013/11/14-html-wg-minutes.html
paulc: lots of EME and MSE stuff in the minutes
<ddorwin> oops
paulc: skip some action items for now -- they seem to be moot
paulc: draft updated today
<paulc> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html
paulc: editors draft
... agenda yesterday shows 3 bugs open - but draft has been
updated since then
... no more open bugs
<paulc> See MSE bugs: http://tinyurl.com/6pdnzej
paulc: were those bugs processed?
<paulc> Bugs to be finished: 23169, 23441, and 23818
paulc: next item is -- have the editors produces a candidate CR draft?
acolwell: generated a draft
<acolwell> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/default/media-source/media-source-cr.html
acolwell: have a couple of
questions
... one of the things complained about is an implementation
report -- what is that?
paulc: when you go in front of
the director -- need to tell him/her what forms of interop you
have
... not sure how this was gone around for HTML5
acolwell: other thing is when
running through the link checked - we have a reference to the
file api around the origin of blob urls
... that was removed from the file api
... intent originally was to say that however it is determined
it is the same for MSE
... file spec no longer says how this is achieved (definition
of the origin)
... planning on filing a bug
<paulc> Normative references: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/default/media-source/media-source-cr.html#normative-references
acolwell: search for "origin of blob uris" in the spec
<paulc> Text referring to FILE-API is "A MediaSource object URL is a unique Blob URI [FILE-API] created by createObjectURL(). It is used to attach a MediaSource object to an HTMLMediaElement."
acolwell: only one reference, but
I remember cyril filed a bug wanting it clarified
... believe it is the equiv of the document origin - but not an
expert
paulc: section 6 says this section specifies extensions to the URI definition -- assume that does not change?
acolwell: that does not change
adrianba: one of the reasons this
is important is that EME sits on top of the origin
determination
... important aspects that look for same origin
... to prevent disclosing information
... using MSE and EME together -- important to know what the
origin of the data was
... recall some discussion w/ Arun from Mozilla about his
proposal to remove the origin tie for blocks at the April of
May F2F
... pointed out we had some restrictions -- must have been
dropped as they have gone ahead and removed it
acolwell: now reference only seems to be when you remove URLs -- nothing about when the blob is created
adrianba: think we need to talk
to the File API group about this
... change may cause a general implementation problem
acolwell: I will file a bug
... this blocks CR
paulc: section (11) that seems to have disappeared is the URI reference for file blob
acolwell: I can copy that text
paulc: lets put that in the minutes
<paulc> The FILE-API section we were referencing is http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-FileAPI-20121025/#originOfBlob
paulc: previous working draft --
not the current one
... sounds like we should file a bug on the LC working draft
issued in September -- point out the section they removed
adrianba: I think it is more complicated -- was not done by accident
paulc: who will take the action?
ddorwin: I can file the bug -- should I just copy the text?
<ddorwin> Even if it's not a simple issue, shouldn't we file a bug against FileAPI to get our foot in the door of the LC process?
adrianba: when I talked to Arun
about this before -- folks were suggesting we could just remove
this, but I pointed out we were relying on it
... currently our implementation only works with MSE
... since we feed information in via a blob URI which can only
be de-referenced in the same origin
... if we remove we no longer have that guarantee
... this is in our implementation (Microsoft)
paulc: so Aaron will file a bug about File API
<scribe> ACTION: Aaron to file a bug on MSE about the File API change [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - File a bug on mse about the file api change [on Aaron Colwell - due 2013-12-10].
<scribe> ACTION: Adrian to speak to editors of FILE-API spec about resurrecting "origin of blob" text in spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Speak to editors of file api spec about resurrecting "origin of blob" text in spec [on Adrian Bateman - due 2013-12-10].
paulc: so this is blocking us
getting out of LC -- contact me once you have dealt with the
problem
... by next Tuesday?
... thanks for the due diligence
acolwell: one more question
... latest streams editors draft is significantly different
than what was before - so we have a reference to previous
working draft
... is that ok for a CR document?
... names may not be stable enough otherwise
... TR would be OK, but current editors draft changes would
break us
paulc: I had an action item (231)
<paulc> ACTION: paulc to coordinate with Web Apps on the streams API, give them MSE requirements and timeline [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Coordinate with web apps on the streams api, give them mse requirements and timeline [on Paul Cotton - due 2013-12-10].
paulc: seems related
<paulc> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/231
paulc: at the F2F pointed out we
need to coordinate with Streams API
... I will close the working group tracker action and use this
one instead
... which items are actually changing in the spec?
<paulc> Editor's draft of Streams: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/streams-api/raw-file/tip/Overview.htm
acolwell: we reference a stream item, but we reference readable stream items, writeable stream items, not clear whether we should reference
pal: my recall is that this group would express its preference to the group in charge of this spec
paulc: yes -- we have a normative dependency
pal: until this is done and an
answer is received, hard to make a determination how to resolve
this issue
... specifically -- should not reference an older version
hoping it will not change
paulc: agree completely
... we could if we got the confirmation back
... we need to make sure we understand what is happening
adrianba: I think what Aaron has
done -- link to a dated draft is reasinable for a CR
... at TPAC we did not know where this was going to go and did
not want to mark as "at risk"
... we have continued to reference streams
... will go back and tidy up references to streams once it
becomes stable
... looks now like a simple change, but could change more
... think it is reasonable to say "this is the concept we had
in mind -- we will fix once stabilized"
paulc: as chair, I think that is a reasonable approach. Need to make sure our references are stable to get out of CR
<pal> sounds good.
paulc: could issue a new CR
before LC
... my action is still pending
... any more questions?
acolwell: IIRC, you said we need a reference to bugs resolved for LC
paulc: that is the implementation
report, and needs to be given separately to the director
... including how we handled all the LC bugs
... I was planning to use a bug search
acolwell: wanted to make sure there was nothing else I need to do
adrianba: started putting a summary disposition of comments on the wiki
<scribe> ACTION: Adrian to produce a summary of last positions for LC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-60 - Produce a summary of last positions for lc [on Adrian Bateman - due 2013-12-10].
acolwell: nothing more
<paulc> >CfC for MSE CR Working Draft is awaiting candidate draft from Editors
<paulc> The CfCs are on hold until we dispose of the FILE-API reference question.
paulc: spec does not appear to
have changed since the 14th
... can EME editors give an update of bugs from F2F?
adrianba: short summary - no more
work has been done
... David updated the bugs with some of the discussion
paulc: reasonable to give editors
another week or two to catch up?
... schedule another dual meeting next week?
adrianba: we could discuss EME next week
paulc: would help if by the
weekend you could give me some idea of how to organize the
discussion
... touched on a lot but did not make decisions at F2F
... make a list of bugs to discuss and dispose of
... use this an the agenda for next weeks
discussion
<paulc> ACTION: paulc to work with wendy to make sure we get a security review of EME [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - Work with wendy to make sure we get a security review of eme [on Paul Cotton - due 2013-12-10].
paulc: this is the Privacy IG review
<paulc> ACTION: paulc to report back about the plan for 20944 due 2013-12-15 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Report back about the plan for 20944 due 2013-12-15 [on Paul Cotton - due 2013-12-10].
<markw_> privacy review and security review are separate things
paulc: Privacy IG has an
outstanding item to give us a review -- email about this in the
archive
... need to find out what the bar is for success
markw_: think that action was to review the security section - not the privacy review
paulc: think that completes the agenda
paulc: we will not meet on Dec
24th and 31st
... meeting on Dec 10th will start with MSE and then move to
EME an technical discussions
... suggest we adjourn
<paulc> action-61?
<trackbot> action-61 -- Paul Cotton to Work with wendy to make sure we get a security review of eme -- due 2013-12-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/61
<paulc> ACTION-62?
<trackbot> ACTION-62 -- Paul Cotton to Report back about the plan for 20944 due 2013-12-15 -- due 2013-12-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/62
<paulc> ACTION-59?
<trackbot> ACTION-59 -- Paul Cotton to Coordinate with web apps on the streams api, give them mse requirements and timeline -- due 2013-12-10 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/59
<scribe> ScribeNick: joesteele
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/is Paul dropping out for anyone else?043143/ / Succeeded: s/opne/open/ Succeeded: s/ddorwin: generated/acolwell: generated/ Succeeded: s/implementatior/implementation/ Succeeded: s/acheived/achieved/ Succeeded: s/blobl/blob/ Succeeded: s/acolwell: I can file/ddorwin: I can file/ Succeeded: s/shouldn't we file a bug/shouldn't we file a bug against FileAPI/ Succeeded: s/currentlyour/currently our/ Succeeded: s/on File API/about File API/ Succeeded: s/cooridinate/coordinate/ Succeeded: s/File API/FILE-API/ Succeeded: s/reasinable/reasonable/ Succeeded: s/chari,/chair,/ Succeeded: s/could issues/could issue/ Succeeded: s/esle/else/ Succeeded: s/sinc ethe/since the/ Succeeded: s/adrianba: think/markw_: think/ Found Scribe: joesteele Inferring ScribeNick: joesteele Found ScribeNick: joesteele Default Present: paulc, Glenn, pladd, Michael_Thornburgh, markw, davide, +1.425.605.aaaa, Aaron_Colwell, ddorwin, pal, joesteele, adrianba, [Microsoft] Present: Aaron_Colwell MarkW Michael_Thornburgh acolwell adrianba danny_ davide ddorwin glenn jdsmith joesteele markw_ pal paulc pladd wseltzer Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Dec/0000.html Found Date: 03 Dec 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/12/03-html-media-minutes.html People with action items: aaron adrian paulc[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]