Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference

 

 

<trackbot> Date: 26 August 2009

<raphael> Regret+ Erik

<raphael> Regret+: Erik

<nessy> zakim: mute me

<raphael> Scribe: Davy

<raphael> scribenick: davy

1. ADMIN

accept minutes http://www.w3.org/2009/08/12-mediafrag-minutes.html

http://www.w3.org/2009/08/19-mediafrag-minutes.html?

<mhausenblas> +1

<raphael> +1

+1

<Yves> +1

<silvia> +1

minutes accepted

raphael: next WG gathering

physical F2F will not take place

scribe: I suggest a virtual meeting

<scribe> ACTION: raphael to setup a doodle poll regarding availability for virtual F2F teleconf [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/26-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - raphael

<scribe> ACTION: rapha�l to setup a doodle poll regarding availability for virtual F2F teleconf [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/26-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - rapha�l

<raphael> trackbot, status

<scribe> ACTION: Rapha�l to setup a doodle poll regarding availability for virtual F2F teleconf [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/26-mediafrag-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Rapha�l

<mhausenblas> Michael: I know of http://tinychat.com/ and http://www.webex.com/

<scribe> ACTION: Raphaël to setup a doodle poll regarding availability for virtual F2F telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/26-mediafrag-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-100 - Setup a doodle poll regarding availability for virtual F2F telecon [on Raphaël Troncy - due 2009-09-02].

2. UC & REQUIREMENTS

action-95?

<trackbot> ACTION-95 -- Michael Hausenblas to review the new UC written by Silvia and check whether it will cover a mobile usage -- due 2009-08-19 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/95

mhausenblas: what do others think about mobile UC?
... we need browser builders, mobile world will be interested in fragments
... will go through the use cases with my mobile glasses

raphael: regarding aspect ratio
... if we want to keep this feature, we should have a motivation for it

silvia: I don't think it has anything to do with a fragment
... should be removed

Yves: UC is not really targetted at browsers, example of setop box, where you don't have access to tools for fitting the video into the screen
... will be more useful for the '?', not for fragments ('#')

Yves: more generally, everything that requires transcoding might be available only under the ? scheme but not # (ie: sub-resources and not fragment)

<scribe> ACTION: Yves to write a UC describing the use of aspect ratio feature [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/26-mediafrag-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-101 - Write a UC describing the use of aspect ratio feature [on Yves Lafon - due 2009-09-02].

TEST CASES

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCases

mhausenblas: updated various TCs
... and added 3 new TCs

<mhausenblas> TC0008

Yves: we should talk with people from Google

silvia: if there was a standard, they would have used it
... they will probably adopt our spec

Yves: should we add the minutes/seconds spec to our spec, even if this will overlap?

silvia: we could add the youtube timespec and use it as default

Yves: we should discuss this on the mailinglist
... regarding Jack's objection (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Aug/0013.html)
... time and space is always present in a video, while track or id will not always be available
... reason for having two kinds of behaviour

jackjansen: don't see the advantage in returning the whole resource in case of a non-existing track or id

<silvia> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCases

jackjansen: wiki version seems now right, different from the minutes

<silvia> http://www.w3.org/2009/08/12-mediafrag-minutes.html

<mhausenblas> http://www.w3.org/2009/08/12-mediafrag-minutes.html#item03

silvia: TC0005 should return a 200
... same for TC0006
... I agree with Yves, maybe we should change 'empty track/named segment' to 'undefined track/named segment'

mhausenblas: we should write a small introduction with information regarding our terminology
... 3 cases
... empty, undefined, or non-existent

jackjansen: non-existent can only be verified by looking at the media

<silvia> (run-time analysis)

jackjansen: empty and undefined can be verified by looking at the URI

<Yves> TC for #xywh=1920,1200,1,1 for a 640x480 picture ?

jackjansen: there is no way to give an undefined space segment

Yves: because space and time are always present in a video

<Yves> TC for #t=20,30 for a 10s video

jackjansen: what about partially existing?
... we should have a TC for that

mhausenblas: two additional cases: existing and partially existing

<Yves> use the numbers as a bitmask

mhausenblas: tool support for TC organization?

<mhausenblas> like http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/rdfa-test-harness/

ISSUES

ISSUE-9?

<trackbot> ISSUE-9 -- Should we have the media type inside the Test Cases? -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/9

mhausenblas: if we want to run a real test harness, we have to know the media type of the media used

silvia: wait until we have some reference implementations, then we will see format-specific issues

adjourned