HTML Media Task Force Teleconference -- 10 Nov 2015

<trackbot> Date: 10 November 2015

<scribe> scribe: joesteele

<paulc> Chair: paulc

<paulc> Scribe: joesteele

Status of MSE heartbeat

<paulc> ACTION-98?

<trackbot> ACTION-98 -- Jerry Smith to Publish heartbeat by nov 15 for mse -- due 2015-11-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/98

paulc: Jerry you have ACTION-98 to get us ready — please give us status. What are the editors planning?

jdsmith: haven’t sorted which issues we want to pickup for the heartbeat, but have talked to PLH about how to proceed

… he needs a summary of the changes since the last heartbeat

plh: I need that list to go to the director for approval — if not substantive changes we don't need approval

jdsmith: how is substantive changes defined?

plh: no formal definition — anything not editorial

jdsmith: I will make a pass since its been a while

MattWolenetz: I can help you Jerry

paulc: does MSE have a changelog where we have been tracking?

MattWolenetz: all the changes I have made are in there

jdsmith: listed by issue

paulc: even if there arent substantive changes, if we had a section that directed readers to that list of items and ptrs to the most important that would be useful

jdsmith: I don’t think any are substantive

<paulc> TR page change log: http://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#revision-history

<jdsmith> https://w3c.github.io/media-source/#revision-history

paulc: does somone have link to the editors draft?

… so lets move on to the ones you need to do

… can just point the reader to the recent history

<paulc> MSE issues ready for implementation (13): https://github.com/w3c/media-source/labels/needs%20implementation

… so will we go ahead with the heartbeat? or do the editors feel that one or more of the outstanding items should be included?

… we can always publish right away and then publish again later

MattWolenetz: would prefer to publish frequently

paulc: given that we have 6 weeks — lets publish as quickly as we can

… there is a moratorium during US Thanksgiving week?

plh: if you give them to me by Thursday I can publish this week

paulc: Ok we will try to give to you today

<plh> http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fmedia-source%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fmedia-source%2F

plh: I don’t believe there are substantive changes either
... just one step in an algorithm

MattWolenetz: there are more bugs like that on the docket for implementation

… is substantive something that would put us back to last call?

plh: no — just look at the link I gave you

… I don’t see any changes there

… just give me the go ahead and I will do the rest

MattWolenetz: one piece that there is no issue tracking is that some references are wrong in the document — in the ReSpec script

… might not be in the editors draft but in the previous heartbeat

… we are still operating under the old process

plh: I will look into it

… do we want to include the registries at the same time?

paulc: don’t think there have been any changes at all there

… can editors confirm?

jdsmith: no changes I know of
... are you talking about the link to the policy?

MattWolenetz: yes I think we are operating under the older policy — the editors draft is incorrect about the process

<paulc> Resolved by the Media TF to publish an MSE update ASAP and possibly this week. No changes have been made to the registries. The published document needs to process to the old W3C Process.

plh: are we under the latest process? or 2014?

<paulc> ReSpec puts in a link to the 2014 process but MSE is under the old process.

paulc: ReSpec puts in a link to the 2014 process but MSE is under the old process

plh: I will fix

paulc: can Matt and Jerry get the information to PLH be EOD?

jdsmith: I think he should have the go ahead

<paulc> We are ready to go to publish the document.

plh: you will get an email from me if there are issues

MattWolenetz: the links to the registry are all from March of this year — no update needed

<plh> ACTION: plh to publish the heartbeat [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/11/10-html-media-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-107 - Publish the heartbeat [on Philippe Le Hégaret - due 2015-11-17].

plh: I think we can close action-98 at this point

<paulc> close ACTION-98

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-98.

paulc: won’t go through the 13 issues the editors need to implement, but make sure they notice pull request 9 is anchored on bug 2933

jdsmith: believe that is done

paulc: does not seem to be marked as done

MattWolenetz: says that it is merged and closed but no timestamp

MattWolenetz

Recent new MSE bugs and issues (4)

paulc: 3 new issue since the F2F
... have you looked at 35, 36 and 37 yet?

MattWolenetz: have not looked yet

paulc: ok editors — will take a pass over issues 35-37 and respond in the issues

<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/35

https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/35

https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/36

https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/37

ISSUE 10

<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/10

<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/14

paulc: have not seen progress — where do we stand?

<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/15

<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/24

<paulc> ISSUE-10 - createObjectURL() not up-to-date with File API (Matt)

MattWolenetz: there is not an immediate answer, looks like it would be a breaking change

<paulc> F2F discussion: http://www.w3.org/2015/10/29-html-media-minutes.html#item04

paulc: looks like we went offline after this discussion — no followup

MattWolenetz: I put something in the actual issue — need to figure out what to do with the issue

… think it would be a breaking change as current apps assume auto-revocation

… if we change the implementation could break those apps

paulc: could editors propose what they would like to do?

… we can get feedback

jdsmith: I assume we must line up with the latest spec

… can we keep an obsolete definition?

paulc: PLH were you in the room for this discussion? do you have an opinion?

plh: …
... I can take a look offline

paulc: let’s get advice from the team here then

… PLH if you can respond on the bug that would help

ISSUE 14

https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/14

paulc: if we can define a stable reference to the new API we can proceed

MattWolenetz: we need to get that stable reference from Dominik — something we can rely on

… this is in the needs followup/need implementation limbo

paulc: beleiebe the new technical implementation refers to the stable stream API

MattWolenetz: need to make sure stuff confirms to the new stable reference

<paulc> Next: https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/15

ISSUE-15

paulc: Matt you have an action on this

<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/15

<paulc> ACTION-99?

<trackbot> ACTION-99 -- Paul Cotton to Action mattwolenetz to split bug27242 into issues -- due 2015-11-05 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/99

MattWolenetz: have a question about that

… for Jerry around which example was being referred to with the long frame display

jdsmith: I was having trouble recalling at the F2F I can comment in the issue

MattWolenetz: 3 issues were identified in one issue — I will split out 2 of the issues and comment on the original bug

… Jerry will comment on the original bug

ISSUE-24

MattWolenetz: this is pending the impleemntaiont of issue-11 to look for side effects

https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/24

paulc: so 11 is at the front of the to be implemented list

MattWolenetz: in addition to following up on appendStreams

CFCs on V.Next features

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Nov/0012.html

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Nov/0013.html

MattWolenetz: I saw the CFC yesterday

paulc: these close next Monday

… there are actually 4 issues marked as feature requests

… we dealt with ISSUE-14 earlier

… ISSUE-7 the BMFF byte stream format should support layered encodings is marked a s afeature request done on Sept 10th

… have we ever confirmed with Jerry or Matt?

MattWolenetz: in the advance telecom prior to F2F we went over all of these issues

… this one seems to be V.Next and we marked it as such at the time

… does not support scalable codecs

… was never meant to be v1

… Mark had also made this request on behalf of Google — we should have clarified that up front

… since it is filed, in my opinion basd on previous discussions, this doesnt appear to be something we can do in V1

… without breaking things

paulc: no further action for now then

… trying to get out of CR and want to clean up things this might be resolved at that time

markw: what Matt says is correct — this should be V.Next

Test Suite Status

http://www.w3.org/2015/10/29-html-media-minutes.html#item17

paulc: when should we see progress on this?

MattWolenetz: driving down “needs implementation” issues right now

paulc: any other questions on this?

next meeting

… Tuesday before the USA holiday?

<paulc> Tue Nov 24th

… not hearing any objections

paulc: that seems like it for today

… discuss EME in two weeks

rrsagent: draft minutes

: rrsagent, draft minutes

- DRAFT -

HTML Media Task Force Teleconference

10 Nov 2015

Attendees

Contents