Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 12 May 2010

1. Admin

<raphael> Scribe: Davy

<scribe> scribenick: davy

Raphael: no full attendance at teleconf :-(

<raphael> Previous telecon: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/14-mediafrag-minutes.html

Raphael: if people do not like the decisions we take at the teleconfs, they should discuss this on the mailing list

<raphael> ... http://www.w3.org/2010/04/28-mediafrag-minutes.html

<raphael> ... http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-mediafrag-minutes.html

<silvia> +1

+1

<erik> +1

<raphael> +1 for accepting these minutes

RESOLUTION: minutes accepted

<raphael> ACTION-92 ?

<trackbot> ACTION-92 -- Erik Mannens to erik and Raphael to coordinate the writing of papers -- due 2010-04-28 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/92

raphael: some parts of the paper might be a good starting point for uncomplete sections in the spec

close action-92

<trackbot> ACTION-92 Erik and Raphael to coordinate the writing of papers closed

raphael: next F2F meeting decision -> postpone it to next week

erik: even if we are just with 4 or 5 people and other people on the phone, we should have a meeting

RESOLUTION: next F2F meeting will be organized at 15-16 June in Eurecom

<scribe> ACTION: troncy to provide practical information for the next F2F [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-162 - Provide practical information for the next F2F [on Raphaël Troncy - due 2010-05-19].

2. Use Cases and Requirements

<raphael> ACTION-156?

<trackbot> ACTION-156 -- Conrad Parker to add a "bandwidth conservation use case" -- due 2010-03-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/156

<raphael> Conrad, could you update us on this ?

<silvia> conrad, are you still there?

3. Specification

discussing the editorship policy of the specification

<raphael> Raphael: curently 2 groups (editors and contributors) while these roles are not really defined by W3C, not consistently used depending on the spec

<raphael> ... Suggest that Silvia and Davy jump to the editors group, they have edited most of the spec

<raphael> ... Suggest to talk with other contributors on the phone regarding their role in the spec (for example, Yves contributed a lot of text some months ago)

<raphael> ... I will apply the changes on the spec

<raphael> ACTION-161?

<trackbot> ACTION-161 -- Silvia Pfeiffer to integrate the test cases into the spec -- due 2010-04-21 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/161

Silvia: waiting for a few issues that are still issues
... 1. #t=a,a and a >= 0 (#2)
... is an empty fragment
... if we send it to the server, we get a 416
... question is whether the client should send it to the server or not, since it can detect there will be an error

raphael: empty fragment -> UA cannot display anything

<raphael> Silvia: we need to have a consistent reaction of media fragment aware browsers

<raphael> ... for legacy browsers, they will react as for HTML

<raphael> Discussion about the empty fragment such as #t=a,a when a>=0

<raphael> Silvia: the UA still sends a range request and should get back an error 416

<raphael> Davy: but the UA knows it is a semantic error, why sending a request at all ?

<raphael> Silvia: the UA could simply do nothing ... irritating, but this is happening with HTML

<raphael> ... the fragment is not interpreted ?

<raphael> ... we could just get the header data of the media file, but stop, not downloading any content !

<raphael> ... for example, a Range Request with an empty fragment and only "include-setup"

<raphael> ... the server sends the header data of the media resource

<raphael> ... with a 206 Partial Content for the header data

raphael: we could apply this solution for the three cases

<raphael> Similar solution for all non-existent or illegal fragments

<raphael> ... see cases detailed at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010May/0021.html

<scribe> ACTION: troncy to send a resolution on handling non-existing or illegal fragments to the mailinglist [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-163 - Send a resolution on handling non-existing or illegal fragments to the mailinglist [on Raphaël Troncy - due 2010-05-19].

close action-161

<trackbot> ACTION-161 Integrate the test cases into the spec closed

<raphael> ACTIOn-154 ?

<trackbot> ACTION-154 -- Yves Lafon to add a section 5.2.4 describing his new optimization -- due 2010-03-16 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/154

<raphael> Raphael: we have described this recipe in the paper and we have the figure

<raphael> Raphael: I have a plugin for firefox, works with ninsuna with videos already ingested

<raphael> ... will send the version to Davy and Silvia for testing now

<raphael> ... + a readme :-)

<raphael> Davy: work on making Ninsuna acting as a proxy

<raphael> Raphael: add a parameter in the proxy to specify a proxy ... so get media fragments URI on any MP4 videos on the web

<raphael> RESOLUTION: re-allocate ACTION-154 to Davy

<raphael> ACTION-123?

<trackbot> ACTION-123 -- Yves Lafon to come up with ABNF for header syntax -- due 2009-12-09 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/123

Action-123?

<trackbot> ACTION-123 -- Yves Lafon to come up with ABNF for header syntax -- due 2009-12-09 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/123

<raphael> RESOLUTION: re-allocate ACTION-123 to Silvia

<raphael> Silvia: I think we should go to LC even if all the features are not resolved

<raphael> ... in order to get more feedback

<raphael> Raphael: agree, f2f meeting mid-June and then LC request end of June

4. AOB?

[adjourned]