Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference

1. Admin

<raphael> +1 for accepting minutes

<davy> +1

<erik> +1

<mhausenblas> +1

<Yves> +1

raphael: minutes accpeted?

all: yes

<silvia> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html

raphael: should we change meeting slot for Dave?
... for now lets keep it as-is

yes

<mhausenblas> Michael: volunteers to review the MA doc

<scribe> ACTION: michael to review Use Cases and Requirements for Ontology and API for Media Object 1.0 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-36 - Review Use Cases and Requirements for Ontology and API for Media Object 1.0 [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2009-02-04].

erik: agenda item 2, future participants

raphael: blinx will not join.
... teleconf with dailymotion soon

michael: wolfgang is interested, could be invited expert.

<raphael> Wolfgang Jochum

raphael: mixup of wolfgangs.

michael: ah! Will ask him today

yves: no progress on google

<raphael> close ACTION-1

<trackbot> ACTION-1 Contact Google AC Rep re member of MediaFrag WG till next week closed

close action 1

close action 17

<raphael> close ACTION-17

<trackbot> ACTION-17 Find out with Philippe who from Google would be interested to join closed

erik: will do final attempt for cisco
... also get guillaume on board again

3. Working Draft

erik: agenda item 3

raphael: template is ready, will email details

<raphael> short: media-frag-reqs

<mhausenblas> as already mentioned re ACTION-32 ... I can contribute as well to support you ... in case I've CVS access (got my CVS account set up for W3C ;)

close action 33

yves: if cvs access does not work mail me

<raphael> Discussion about the syntax

<raphael> close ACTION-25

<trackbot> ACTION-25 Describe why smpte is the only frame accurate one closed

<raphael> Jack: we need SMPTE for frame accuracy

<raphael> Dave: we only need rational numbers

<raphael> +1 with Jack for having SMPTE timecode only

silvia: rational numbers not used often
... smpte is better

close action 25

<trackbot> ACTION-25 Describe why smpte is the only frame accurate one closed

raphael: on to action 27, units to use (pixels, cm, inch, etc)

yves: will work on it

<raphael> Results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/42785/MFRAGSYNTAXSEPARATOR/results

jack: nothing done yet on 28

<raphael> 6 for ampersand, 1 for semi-colon

erik: separators.

silvia: there is a bit of an issue with thousands separators. Let's state we do not use them.

<raphael> +1

<Yves> +1 to not using thousands separators

<Jack> +1

raphael: primary separator: 6 votes for &, one for ;
... others please vote
... reololution: primary separator is ampoersand

<raphael> RESOLVED: primary separator will be the ampersand character

<raphael> Second poll: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/42785/MFRAGSYNTAXRECTANGLE/results

erik: rects has silvia as odd-man-out

silvia: css does not use xywh. it uses trbl

raphael: in email I said we should allow trbl and xywh

RESOLUTION: primary separator will be the ampersand character

silvia: maybe do all

raphael: lets do all for the first wd
... let the community decide

<raphael> raphael: I suggest to put in the WD the various possibilities, and let the community decide

<mhausenblas> +1

<erik> +1

+1

<davy> +1

<silvia> +1

<raphael> next poll results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/42785/MFRAGSYNTAXQUOTE/results

RESOLUTION: will do all 4 schemes for the first working draft and let the community decide

erik: next one: the quotes

<mhausenblas> just for the record, as I guess we will not be able to approach agenda item 4 today anymore

<mhausenblas> I've created an issue now for the registry stuff, see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/3

<Yves> like & -> &amp; " -> &#XX;

silvia: double quotes are not allowed in urls according to spec.
... will also check for &, while we're at it

erik: everybody says optional, except michael.

michael: not too strong an opinion. I'm fine with optional

RESOLUTION: quotes are optional. Single or double tbd

silvia: ampersand is allowed (unlike double quote)

<silvia> sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")"

<silvia> / "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "="

<silvia> gen-delims = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "@"

<silvia> sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")"

<silvia> / "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "="

<silvia> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt

<raphael> raphael thinks that Silvia said that double quotes are simply forbidden as per RFC3986

RESOLUTION: we use only single quotes as double are not in uri construction

<raphael> +1

<erik> +1

<silvia> +1

+1

raphael: will send wrapup of feedback to list (
... action 22 can be closed

close action-22

<trackbot> ACTION-22 Complete the table, trying to get the answer for the current question marks, except when this is a close format closed

4. issues

<raphael> discussion about ISSUE-1: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/1

silvia: summarizes mail discussion, we want scenario 3

<mhausenblas> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Jan/0061.html

jack: violently agrees with silvia

raphael: will summarize

<scribe> ACTION: raphaël to summarize clip-combining discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-37 - Summarize clip-combining discussion [on Raphaël Troncy - due 2009-02-04].

<raphael> ISSUE-2: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/2

<trackbot> ISSUE-2 What is the mime type of a media fragment? What is its relation with its parent resource? notes added

erik: on to mime types for fragments

<mhausenblas> Michael: question is blurry, for me more issues, I've created ISSUE-3 re the registry part of it

<raphael> Yves: when we create a new representation (new mime-type), we create a new resource

yves: new mime-type means new resource

<silvia> +1

michael: sounds good

+1

<davy> +1

<erik> +1

<mhausenblas> ISSUE-3: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/3

<trackbot> ISSUE-3 Does our MF URI syntax imlpy that we need to update MIME Type registrations? notes added

silvia: this goes beyond our scope

<raphael> registry is not possible since we do not own the mime types jpg, jpg2000, avi, mov, etc.

michael: but if we follow specs to the letter we must.

<silvia> http://example.com/image.jpg#trbl=2,4,4,6

michael: need to show we have addressed this issue (even if by ignoring it because we cannot fix it)

<raphael> Silvia: temporalURI had the same problem ...

<raphael> Silvia: we did that for ogg because we own the format

<raphael> scribenick: raphael

Silvia: I do not agree we have a problem here ... we have discussed that from the beginning

Michael: we have 2 different opinions
... I think Raphael said 'we do not care'
... and I say we should care

Raphael: I said, we stick in the general framework of RFC3986, unspecified semantics

<mhausenblas> +1

Raphael: should we write a paragraph to state what we aim for ?

Michael: yes, I volunteer to do draft that

<mhausenblas> Michael: sorry for missinterpreting Raphael, ack his wording

<silvia> +1

<scribe> ACTION: Michael to draft a paragraph that will solve ISSUE-3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-mediafrag-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Draft a paragraph that will solve ISSUE-3 [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2009-02-04].

<mhausenblas> +1

<mhausenblas> Michael: notes to himself re action 4 that he needs to include the sentence 'we don't own specs, so general case applies;

<mhausenblas> [adjourned]