Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference

 

 

<trackbot> Date: 07 October 2009

<raphael> Chair: Erik, Raphael

<scribe> scribenick: conrad

1. admin

<raphael> Last week telecon minutes: http://www.w3.org/2009/09/30-mediafrag-minutes.html

<Yves> +1 to accept minutes

<erik> +1

<raphael> +1

<davy> +1

RESOLUTION: to accept the minutes of 2009-09-30

raphael: i have reworked the use case and req documents

2. UC & Requirements doc

<raphael> ACTIOn-116?

<trackbot> ACTION-116 -- Davy Van Deursen to davy And Erik to review UC & Requirements document before pub -- due 2009-10-07 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/116

ACTION-105?

<trackbot> ACTION-105 -- Raphaël Troncy to address all comments and write a reply to MAWG -- due 2009-09-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/105

ACTION-106?

<trackbot> ACTION-106 -- Raphaël Troncy to draft a paragraph explaining upfront in the document why we are doing that ... justification for the MPEG community -- due 2009-09-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/106

close action-116

<trackbot> ACTION-116 Davy And Erik to review UC & Requirements document before pub closed

close action-105

<trackbot> ACTION-105 Address all comments and write a reply to MAWG closed

close action-106

<trackbot> ACTION-106 Draft a paragraph explaining upfront in the document why we are doing that ... justification for the MPEG community closed

<raphael> Some unanswered questions: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/

<raphael> Werner suggests we don't use the term "Mask"

<davy> continuous view?

<erik> "continous part"?

<raphael> Replace "mask" by a "single segment"

jackjansen, just add a statement that we don't want holes

<raphael> Jack: we don't want holes

raphael: section 3.1 figure explains context, but the last row "example image track" illustrates that we can take a blob of an image, but the text doesn't consider this

raphael, case, eg. spatial regions of images

phillip suggested we specify that we also support spatial ranges

jack: what is the difference (from our point of view) between text and image track?

i think the overlapping content is the main thing

so for temporal addressing there can be multiple text elements which match a temporal region

jack: for this draft perhaps we should only specify audio+video

and chasing dependencies of previous text elements (ie. working out which are active now) can be more difficult than eg. video keyframes

raphael: we should publish, including these minor changes

jack: editorial note by silvia is a question to the reader
... editorial note by dave singer, needs to be addressed (sec 3.12)?

"The fallback plan needs to be clarified. We must be able to handle the way the # is already used, e.g. in YouTube, without breaking what is already working."

raphael: the wg. has discussed that we need to be backwards-compatible with existing implementations as much as possible

eg. youtube syntax, and we are still discussing what the behaviour should be

so is the vague phrasing of compatibility with "widely implemented solutions" enough?

raphael: we have already discussed that eg. the youtube way could be a different syntax we specify, with explicity hms

jack: ok then we should add a sentence about that, and a note to suggest that parsers recognize foreign syntax and stay away from it
... so if we draft a paragraph and send it to dave, see what he thinks

raphael: ok, but also that is not blocking the publication of documents

<raphael> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/

Proposed to publish documents currently staged at http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/

<raphael> +1 for publication

<davy> +1

<Yves> +1

<erik> +1

<jackjansen> +1

<nessy> +1

+1

RESOLUTION: to publish documents currently staged at http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/

3. specification

3. Specification

action-117?

<trackbot> ACTION-117 -- Raphaël Troncy to review Silvia's summary of her blogpost, i.e. the Section 3 of the spec -- due 2009-10-07 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/117

raphael: no progress on 117 and 112, pending comments by silvia

<raphael> Raphael: suggest to postpone decision on publishing this doc to next week

Raphael: after 117 and 112 are complete, we can think about publishing the documents, as they don't currently reflect the progress we have made

4. Test Cases

all actions on test cases are pending

jackjansen, please notify the mailing list when spec changes are made

nessy: we should implement cvs commit emails etc. etc.

<nessy> conrad: yes, but we won't have access to the cvs management box, I don't hink

<nessy> Yves would know if that was possible

<jackjansen> I second silvia's proposal

usually there is a separate mailing list for cvs-commits, and a post-hook added to cvs to mail commit details to that list

eg. media-fragment-notifications or something like that

<scribe> ACTION: Yves to request admins to set up a cvs notifications mailing list and notifications [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/10/07-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-119 - Request admins to set up a cvs notifications mailing list and notifications [on Yves Lafon - due 2009-10-14].

<raphael> Silvia, it just meant we agree on your comment today that the spec doc is not yet ready for publication

<raphael> ... but it is pending on my actions

<raphael> ... when they are done, I think the missing sections will be here and the document publishable

Raphael: AOB?

7. AOB

Raphael: AOB?

<nessy> raphael: I agree :)