IRC log of mediafrag on 2009-09-23
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 08:59:50 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #mediafrag
- 08:59:50 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-irc
- 08:59:52 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 08:59:52 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #mediafrag
- 08:59:54 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be IA_MFWG
- 08:59:54 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot; I see IA_MFWG()5:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
- 08:59:55 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
- 08:59:55 [trackbot]
- Date: 23 September 2009
- 09:00:16 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
- 09:00:31 [jackjansen]
- zakim, code?
- 09:00:31 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 3724 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jackjansen
- 09:00:34 [Zakim]
- IA_MFWG()5:00AM has now started
- 09:00:38 [Zakim]
- +raphael
- 09:00:45 [raphael]
- Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0129.html
- 09:00:51 [raphael]
- Chair: Erik, Raphael
- 09:01:12 [raphael]
- Present: Conrad, Jack, Michael, Silvia, Raphael, Thierry, Yves
- 09:01:31 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
- 09:01:55 [Zakim]
- +mhausenblas
- 09:02:04 [Zakim]
- +Jack_Jansen
- 09:02:16 [Zakim]
- +Simon_Pieters
- 09:02:30 [raphael]
- Scribe: jackjansen
- 09:02:35 [raphael]
- Scrinenick: jackjansen
- 09:02:46 [conrad]
- Zakim, Simon_Pieters is me
- 09:02:46 [Zakim]
- +conrad; got it
- 09:04:16 [Zakim]
- +tmichel
- 09:04:23 [raphael]
- scribenick: jackjansen
- 09:04:25 [Zakim]
- +Yves
- 09:04:27 [erik]
- erik has joined #mediafrag
- 09:04:36 [raphael]
- Present+ Erik
- 09:05:01 [jackjansen]
- TOPIC: 1 admin
- 09:05:19 [conrad]
- Zakim, mute me
- 09:05:19 [Zakim]
- conrad should now be muted
- 09:05:33 [raphael]
- Minutes telecon: http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html
- 09:05:44 [raphael]
- Minutes F2F: http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-minutes.html and http://www.w3.org/2009/09/18-mediafrag-minutes.html
- 09:05:47 [mhausenblas]
- +1
- 09:05:51 [raphael]
- +1
- 09:05:58 [Zakim]
- +erik
- 09:06:13 [jackjansen]
- Raphael: minutes approved
- 09:06:36 [silvia]
- +1
- 09:06:41 [conrad]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 09:06:41 [Zakim]
- conrad should no longer be muted
- 09:07:09 [jackjansen]
- Thierry: action-111 is ongoing
- 09:07:48 [jackjansen]
- TOPIC: 2 UC & requirements
- 09:08:00 [conrad]
- Zakim, mute me
- 09:08:00 [Zakim]
- conrad should now be muted
- 09:08:14 [jackjansen]
- Raphael: 105 and 106 are ongoing, will try to do this afternoon
- 09:08:31 [raphael]
- ACTION-95?
- 09:08:31 [trackbot]
- ACTION-95 -- Michael Hausenblas to review ALL UC with a mobile hat on and check whether these sufficiently cover the mobile usage -- due 2009-09-02 -- OPEN
- 09:08:31 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/95
- 09:09:10 [jackjansen]
- Michael: on 95 there seem to be no issues with mobile
- 09:09:34 [jackjansen]
- RESOLVED: 95, no special issues for mobile
- 09:10:51 [raphael]
- Side Conditions are in 2 documents: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#side-conditions
- 09:10:58 [raphael]
- which document should it be?
- 09:11:05 [raphael]
- close ACTION-95
- 09:11:05 [trackbot]
- ACTION-95 Review ALL UC with a mobile hat on and check whether these sufficiently cover the mobile usage closed
- 09:11:16 [raphael]
- Jack: I agree it should be in one document, no preference
- 09:12:07 [jackjansen]
- Raphael: tends to think its requirement doc
- 09:12:10 [mhausenblas]
- +1
- 09:12:43 [jackjansen]
- ACTION: Raphael to move section to requirements doc only
- 09:12:43 [trackbot]
- Sorry, couldn't find user - Raphael
- 09:12:54 [raphael]
- Silvia: about your suggestion of removing the side conditions section in one of the two document
- 09:13:09 [jackjansen]
- ACTION: troncy to move section to requirements doc only
- 09:13:09 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-113 - Move section to requirements doc only [on Raphaël Troncy - due 2009-09-30].
- 09:13:15 [raphael]
- ... we will remove it from the spec and keep it in the requirements doc
- 09:13:33 [silvia]
- +1
- 09:13:54 [jackjansen]
- TOPIC: 3 specification
- 09:14:11 [raphael]
- ACTION-109?
- 09:14:11 [trackbot]
- ACTION-109 -- Erik Mannens to and Davy to write a paragraph in the documents to explain why we don't include this feature in the spec (rationale) based on the group analysis (impact both req and spec documents) -- due 2009-09-24 -- OPEN
- 09:14:11 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/109
- 09:14:31 [raphael]
- Yes, Silvia, this is Erik action we are talking about
- 09:14:31 [jackjansen]
- Erik: 109 will be done this week
- 09:14:40 [raphael]
- ACTION-110?
- 09:14:40 [trackbot]
- ACTION-110 -- Silvia Pfeiffer to silvia to Draft a summary starting from her blog post and the 17/09/2009 IRC minutes in the document (role of ? and #) -- due 2009-09-24 -- OPEN
- 09:14:40 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/110
- 09:14:49 [silvia]
- 110 will be done this week
- 09:14:50 [raphael]
- ... what's the status of this action?
- 09:14:57 [silvia]
- not done yet
- 09:15:05 [jackjansen]
- Silvia: 110 also this week
- 09:15:22 [jackjansen]
- Raphael: let's talk about range syntax
- 09:15:50 [raphael]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0133.html
- 09:16:11 [silvia]
- I just a few minutes ago sent an update on that discussion
- 09:16:25 [silvia]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0135.html
- 09:17:08 [silvia]
- does anyone have the specification that Yves pointed out will update the RFC to satisfy the need for other range types?
- 09:18:32 [conrad]
- if we are going to make a spec for time range units, i agree with silvia's proposal that both Range request header and Content-Range response header should use "time:npt" etc.
- 09:20:29 [conrad]
- if we start re-using parsers then we need to have the same syntax constraints in both
- 09:20:53 [conrad]
- eg. commas have a special meaning in headers
- 09:20:56 [conrad]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 09:20:56 [Zakim]
- conrad should no longer be muted
- 09:21:00 [jackjansen]
- Jack: prefres to stay close to existing http syntax
- 09:21:58 [silvia]
- we are not making any differences to existing http syntax
- 09:22:13 [jackjansen]
- Conrad: also syntax in different http headers
- 09:22:19 [jackjansen]
- Jack: agrees
- 09:22:23 [silvia]
- the RFC has been reviewed: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/85
- 09:22:35 [conrad]
- Zakim, mute me
- 09:22:35 [Zakim]
- conrad should now be muted
- 09:22:42 [silvia]
- one change was "make name of header value production for "Range" consistent with other headers"
- 09:22:46 [jackjansen]
- Raphael: proposed resolution: adapt proposal from Silvia, with both range and content-range
- 09:23:00 [jackjansen]
- ... using dimension:unit
- 09:23:02 [conrad]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 09:23:02 [Zakim]
- conrad should no longer be muted
- 09:23:15 [raphael]
- Range: <dimension>[':' <unit>] '=' <start time> - <end time>
- 09:23:18 [jackjansen]
- s/adapt/adopt
- 09:23:40 [jackjansen]
- conrad: units not optional
- 09:23:43 [Yves]
- +1 to no optional unit
- 09:23:55 [jackjansen]
- +1
- 09:23:56 [raphael]
- Range: <dimension> ':' <unit> '=' <start time> - <end time>
- 09:24:13 [raphael]
- same for Content6range
- 09:24:17 [silvia]
- why no optional unit?
- 09:24:20 [conrad]
- if any of the time are allowed to have frame offsets, the unit must be there
- 09:24:22 [raphael]
- s/Content6range/Content-Range
- 09:24:25 [jackjansen]
- Raphael: revised proposal: units not optional, same for content-range
- 09:24:35 [conrad]
- Zakim, mute me
- 09:24:35 [Zakim]
- conrad should now be muted
- 09:24:45 [raphael]
- +1 for this proposal
- 09:25:28 [raphael]
- silvia, if the offset is at the frame precision, then unit is mandatory
- 09:25:37 [Yves]
- silvia, because machines are nto humans
- 09:25:42 [Yves]
- s/nto/not
- 09:25:50 [jackjansen]
- beep beep
- 09:26:03 [raphael]
- Silvia, no objection ?
- 09:26:19 [silvia]
- no, I am not too worried about optional/non-optional unit in Range
- 09:26:23 [silvia]
- +1
- 09:26:32 [silvia]
- just curious about reasoning :)
- 09:26:40 [mhausenblas]
- +1
- 09:26:56 [jackjansen]
- RESOLUTION: range and unit are non-optional in content-range and range headers
- 09:27:13 [silvia]
- btw: the draft RFC update is here http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-07#page-8
- 09:27:39 [mhausenblas]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 09:27:48 [mhausenblas]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 09:27:48 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html mhausenblas
- 09:27:55 [jackjansen]
- Raphael: next, should we use range for addressing tracks?
- 09:27:57 [conrad]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 09:27:57 [Zakim]
- conrad should no longer be muted
- 09:28:10 [raphael]
- http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Server-parsed_Fragments
- 09:28:14 [mhausenblas]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes
- 09:28:14 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html mhausenblas
- 09:28:29 [conrad]
- silvia: what is your response about use of range for track?
- 09:28:29 [jackjansen]
- ... Conrad wants new header, Silvia wants to reuse range
- 09:29:10 [jackjansen]
- Yves: range header is mainly numeric
- 09:29:11 [silvia]
- I wonder why we need a different header for that - let me read up on the email thread
- 09:29:22 [Zakim]
- -raphael
- 09:29:50 [jackjansen]
- Yves: we will wait for raphael to return
- 09:31:24 [silvia]
- so, Yves, do you agree about creating a new "Fragment:" header for tracks?
- 09:31:35 [conrad]
- you can't take an interval of track names, or describe the instance-length for Content-Range
- 09:31:47 [jackjansen]
- We will continue.
- 09:32:21 [silvia]
- you could if the tracks were ordered
- 09:32:32 [silvia]
- then the "instance-length" could be the number of tracks
- 09:32:33 [jackjansen]
- Yves: if we have it in range, would we need resolver to map track names to byte ranges?
- 09:34:07 [jackjansen]
- zakim, who is here?
- 09:34:07 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see mhausenblas, Jack_Jansen, conrad, tmichel, Yves, erik
- 09:34:09 [silvia]
- we need such a resolver for time, too
- 09:34:10 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see erik, Zakim, RRSAgent, tmichel, jackjansen, silvia, mhausenblas, conrad, trackbot, Yves
- 09:34:51 [conrad]
- silvia: how do you request "t=20/20&track=audio" as a Range header, and how do you make the Content-Range response?
- 09:35:17 [jackjansen]
- Yves: anyone has any response to my question?
- 09:35:20 [silvia]
- multiple Range headers
- 09:35:25 [jackjansen]
- Jack: no opinion
- 09:35:28 [silvia]
- multiple Content-Range response headers
- 09:35:55 [Yves]
- multiple content ranges are allowed
- 09:36:06 [jackjansen]
- Yves: there is a similarity to what we said about crop
- 09:36:15 [Yves]
- s/crop/aspect ratio/
- 09:36:26 [Yves]
- is track as a #fragment really required?
- 09:36:35 [silvia]
- can you explain the similarity that you see?
- 09:36:51 [Yves]
- when a URI can be contructed with the relevantstarting/ending time
- 09:37:15 [jackjansen]
- Should we table this until next week, silvia?
- 09:37:33 [Yves]
- having named tracks instead of numeric value adds unnecessary complexity that requires a resolver, or a way to enumerate all the tracks in order
- 09:37:59 [silvia]
- I do believe the track and also the id issues aren't fully understood yet
- 09:38:37 [silvia]
- I also believe that it is good to focus on solving the "time" specification and protocol procedure now, but the others can wait a bit
- 09:38:52 [conrad]
- Yves, that relates to ISSUE-4
- 09:39:11 [silvia]
- we could indeed keep discussing this on the mailing list until we have the spec for "time" finalised
- 09:39:13 [jackjansen]
- Yves: table, discuss on mail or next week.
- 09:39:56 [jackjansen]
- TOPIC: 4, test cases
- 09:40:08 [mhausenblas]
- http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCases
- 09:40:59 [jackjansen]
- Michael: on action 93, it doesn't seem to affect anything
- 09:41:38 [jackjansen]
- RESOLVED: action-93, no test cases were affected
- 09:41:45 [mhausenblas]
- close ACTION-93
- 09:41:45 [trackbot]
- ACTION-93 Revisit the TC and see which are effected by the temporal-optional-comma-decision closed
- 09:42:19 [jackjansen]
- Michael: remove test case 4, as aspect ratio is gone
- 09:42:29 [Yves]
- +1
- 09:42:48 [jackjansen]
- ACTION on Michael to remove it
- 09:42:48 [trackbot]
- Sorry, couldn't find user - on
- 09:43:04 [jackjansen]
- ACTION Michael to remove test case 4
- 09:43:04 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-114 - Remove test case 4 [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2009-09-30].
- 09:43:20 [mhausenblas]
- state semantics http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/mftc
- 09:44:03 [jackjansen]
- Michael: on to action 108
- 09:44:34 [mhausenblas]
- Michael: empty means that it is defined but yields empty representation
- 09:44:40 [conrad]
- Zakim, mute me
- 09:44:40 [Zakim]
- conrad should now be muted
- 09:45:17 [jackjansen]
- Michael: looking at naming of test cases, empty versus undefined
- 09:45:41 [jackjansen]
- ... is inconsistent, will clean it up
- 09:46:17 [jackjansen]
- ... empty means - yields empty representation
- 09:46:46 [jackjansen]
- s/yields/defined, but yields
- 09:46:57 [mhausenblas]
- two main categories: defined or undefined
- 09:47:14 [jackjansen]
- ... undefined means - no range given
- 09:47:37 [mhausenblas]
- empty is defined, but yields empty representation
- 09:48:47 [jackjansen]
- ACTION Michael to come up with categorization of test cases wrt empty, undefined, etc
- 09:48:47 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-115 - Come up with categorization of test cases wrt empty, undefined, etc [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2009-09-30].
- 09:49:20 [jackjansen]
- TOPIC: 5 issues
- 09:49:39 [jackjansen]
- Jack: no idea on issue 6
- 09:50:21 [jackjansen]
- Yves: table it until Raphael is back
- 09:50:32 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html Yves
- 09:50:32 [conrad]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 09:50:32 [Zakim]
- conrad should no longer be muted
- 09:50:33 [Zakim]
- -tmichel
- 09:50:33 [jackjansen]
- Tves: let's adjourn the meeting
- 09:50:34 [Zakim]
- -mhausenblas
- 09:50:40 [Zakim]
- -conrad
- 09:50:41 [Zakim]
- -Yves
- 09:50:51 [Zakim]
- -Jack_Jansen
- 09:51:07 [jackjansen]
- ok, thanks!
- 09:51:20 [jackjansen]
- Too many different syntaxes with rrsagent and zakim:-)
- 09:51:52 [Zakim]
- -erik
- 09:51:53 [Zakim]
- IA_MFWG()5:00AM has ended
- 09:51:55 [Zakim]
- Attendees were raphael, mhausenblas, Jack_Jansen, conrad, tmichel, Yves, erik
- 09:51:56 [Yves]
- yeah we should unify those ;)
- 09:52:10 [Yves]
- trackbot, end telcon
- 09:52:11 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 09:52:11 [Zakim]
- sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
- 09:52:12 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 09:52:12 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html trackbot
- 09:52:13 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 09:52:13 [RRSAgent]
- I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-actions.rdf :
- 09:52:13 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Raphael to move section to requirements doc only [1]
- 09:52:13 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-irc#T09-12-43
- 09:52:13 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: troncy to move section to requirements doc only [2]
- 09:52:13 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-irc#T09-13-09