IRC log of html-media on 2013-02-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:55:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #html-media
15:55:52 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/26-html-media-irc
15:55:54 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:55:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #html-media
15:55:56 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 63342
15:55:56 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:55:57 [trackbot]
Meeting: HTML Media Task Force Teleconference
15:55:57 [trackbot]
Date: 26 February 2013
15:56:16 [adrianba]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Feb/0111.html
15:56:21 [adrianba]
Chair: Paul Cotton
15:56:27 [adrianba]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:56:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/02/26-html-media-minutes.html adrianba
15:56:34 [adrianba]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:56:50 [Zakim]
HTML_WG()11:00AM has now started
15:56:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.425.269.aaaa
15:57:17 [joesteele]
joesteele has joined #html-media
15:58:03 [Zakim]
+ddorwin
15:58:09 [ddorwin]
ddorwin has joined #html-media
15:59:24 [Zakim]
+joesteele
15:59:27 [Zakim]
-joesteele
15:59:48 [Zakim]
+joesteele
15:59:58 [Zakim]
+pal
16:00:34 [markw]
markw has joined #html-media
16:01:16 [paulc]
paulc has joined #html-media
16:01:51 [paulc]
joining on the phone in a second
16:02:09 [Zakim]
+Mark_Watson
16:02:23 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft]
16:02:24 [markw]
Zakim, Mark_Watson is markw
16:02:24 [Zakim]
+markw; got it
16:02:38 [paulc]
zakim, [Microsoft] has paulc
16:02:38 [Zakim]
+paulc; got it
16:03:29 [Zakim]
+[Microsoft.a]
16:03:35 [adrianba]
zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
16:03:35 [Zakim]
+adrianba; got it
16:03:47 [paulc]
agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Feb/0111.html
16:04:36 [BobLund]
BobLund has joined #html-media
16:05:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.303.503.aabb
16:05:29 [paulc]
zakim, aabb is boblund
16:05:29 [Zakim]
+boblund; got it
16:05:31 [BobLund]
zakim, aabb is me
16:05:31 [Zakim]
sorry, BobLund, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
16:06:04 [joesteele]
scribe: joesteele
16:06:12 [joesteele]
chair: paulc
16:06:35 [joesteele]
trackbot-ng, start telcon
16:06:37 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:06:39 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 63342
16:06:39 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()11:00AM scheduled to start 6 minutes ago
16:06:40 [trackbot]
Meeting: HTML Media Task Force Teleconference
16:06:40 [trackbot]
Date: 26 February 2013
16:06:59 [joesteele]
TOPIC: #5 progression to FPWD
16:07:05 [jdsmith]
jdsmith has joined #html-media
16:07:13 [joesteele]
Zakim, who is speaking?
16:07:13 [Zakim]
sorry, joesteele, I don't know what conference this is
16:07:24 [joesteele]
Zakim, this will be HTML-Medai
16:07:24 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, joesteele
16:07:28 [joesteele]
Zakim, this will be HTML-Media
16:07:28 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, joesteele
16:07:52 [joesteele]
paulc: Topic is bugs discussed during previous meeting
16:08:01 [joesteele]
TOPIC: Bugs discussed last time
16:08:29 [adrianba]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944
16:08:33 [joesteele]
Bug #20944
16:08:37 [paulc]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944
16:08:43 [joesteele]
paulc: Is this done?
16:09:05 [joesteele]
paulc: adrian called this out? any more to do?
16:09:10 [joesteele]
adrian: that was it
16:09:19 [joesteele]
paulc; Bug 20960
16:09:27 [paulc]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20960
16:09:37 [joesteele]
paulc: EME not limited to video
16:09:48 [joesteele]
paulc: lots of discussion
16:10:00 [joesteele]
markw: not sure I have made progres
16:10:14 [joesteele]
+q
16:10:25 [joesteele]
markw: topic is roving across several bugs
16:10:50 [joesteele]
markw: general theme is that EME is not constrained by the spec
16:10:58 [joesteele]
... not sure how to address this
16:11:16 [joesteele]
... the intention is for browsers to place constraints, but not sure how to express
16:11:49 [joesteele]
... because we are not locking it down -- CDM can implement anything
16:11:53 [joesteele]
... that is the argument
16:11:56 [adrianba]
q+
16:12:10 [joesteele]
markw: certainly possible, what can we do?
16:12:26 [joesteele]
paulc: doesn't look like we can close down
16:12:45 [adrianba]
q?
16:13:00 [joesteele]
paulc: we can add some general spec
16:13:07 [paulc]
ack joe
16:13:55 [paulc]
ack adrian
16:14:04 [joesteele]
joesteele: not sure we can address because the questions are not well-formed
16:14:06 [adrianba]
"This proposal extends HTMLMediaElement providing APIs to control playback of protected content."
16:14:21 [joesteele]
adrianba: this line specifies what the spec is for
16:14:42 [joesteele]
... we can't do anything in the spec to control what the user agent can do
16:14:49 [joesteele]
... we can only say what the spec is for
16:15:05 [joesteele]
paulc: mark this as "Won't Fix" with what Adrian says
16:15:27 [joesteele]
..." we believe the spec is constrained to video elemtns and anything else is out of scope"
16:15:34 [joesteele]
Bug 20961
16:15:46 [paulc]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20961
16:16:34 [joesteele]
paulc: Bugs says -- please include scope of priviledges CDM require so we can evaluate
16:17:03 [ddorwin]
q+
16:17:18 [joesteele]
paulc: do we agree with his statement?
16:17:18 [paulc]
ack dd
16:17:38 [joesteele]
ddorwin: has been a discussion of what DRM is and whether it is targeted by this spec
16:17:49 [joesteele]
... his argument is that the most limiting case is what is proposed
16:17:58 [joesteele]
... we should not be talking about the other cases
16:18:08 [johnsim]
johnsim has joined #html-media
16:18:15 [joesteele]
paulc: Mark says this is clearly not required in comment #4
16:18:18 [adrianba]
q+
16:18:42 [joesteele]
markw: reporters keeps coming back to claim only full DRM is supported
16:19:36 [joesteele]
paulc: I think we should resolve as "Won't Fix" and repeat Marks statement. His comment #4 is the deifnitive answer
16:19:45 [joesteele]
s/deifnitive/definitive/
16:19:46 [adrianba]
q?
16:20:05 [paulc]
ack adrian
16:20:31 [joesteele]
adrianba: we decided last week to resolve one of the bugs as not to define the CDM in the EME but abstract that away
16:20:45 [joesteele]
... someone else can define that
16:21:05 [joesteele]
paulc: we decided to make that dependent on all of the other bugs
16:21:19 [joesteele]
... several of the bugs were going to be marked as dependent
16:21:30 [joesteele]
paulc: did someone do that?
16:21:53 [joesteele]
adrianba; we decided that we would not decide the patented technology bug that way
16:22:10 [joesteele]
... CDM specifics are outside the scope of EME
16:22:24 [joesteele]
s/adrianba;/adrianba:/
16:22:46 [joesteele]
paulc: suggesting we should use the ame style resolution for 61?
16:22:50 [joesteele]
adrianba: yes
16:23:01 [joesteele]
s/ame style/same style/
16:23:07 [paulc]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20962
16:23:08 [joesteele]
paulc: moving on
16:23:15 [joesteele]
Bug 20962
16:23:23 [joesteele]
adrianba: resolving as we go
16:23:27 [joesteele]
Bug 20983
16:23:45 [joesteele]
s/Bug 20983/Bug 20963/
16:23:57 [joesteele]
paulc: made dependent on 61 and 44
16:24:06 [joesteele]
... no discussion needed
16:24:12 [joesteele]
Bug 20965
16:24:23 [paulc]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20965
16:24:41 [joesteele]
s/on 61 and 44/on 20961 and 20944/
16:24:51 [joesteele]
Bug 20966
16:25:06 [joesteele]
paulc: please split ClearKey out
16:25:09 [paulc]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21016
16:25:40 [joesteele]
adrianba: asked Glen to respond and he did
16:25:57 [joesteele]
ddorwin: would be ok with "should" but it is already included
16:26:11 [joesteele]
paulc: how should we resolve?
16:26:35 [joesteele]
paulc: could mark and resolved to force the comment
16:26:46 [joesteele]
... or we could change the MUST to a SHOULD
16:27:03 [joesteele]
adrianba: don't think that makes a substantial difference
16:27:17 [joesteele]
... happy with the spec as it is written today
16:27:27 [joesteele]
... could change SHOULD to MAY
16:27:51 [joesteele]
ddorwin: this should be discussed as a normal bug (for normative text)
16:27:59 [joesteele]
paulc: do we have an advocate for MAY?
16:28:14 [joesteele]
adrianba: not me, no change advocated
16:28:55 [joesteele]
pal: would this resolve the issue?
16:29:02 [joesteele]
paulc: probably not
16:29:18 [joesteele]
... would meet most of his requirement by making it a MAY
16:29:37 [joesteele]
pal: we can ask Henri in the thread if this will resolve it
16:30:06 [joesteele]
paulc: don't ask permission, ask forgiveness - let's resolve and he can comment if this is a problem
16:30:21 [joesteele]
... unless there is not concensus to change it
16:30:38 [adrianba]
q+
16:30:40 [joesteele]
joesteele: I think optional is good
16:30:52 [joesteele]
paulc: does anyone object to the change?
16:30:55 [adrianba]
q?
16:31:06 [joesteele]
no objections voiced
16:31:28 [paulc]
adrian
16:31:29 [joesteele]
paulc: resolve as WONT FIX and the group agrees
16:31:44 [joesteele]
adrianba: we should resolve later once we have implementation experience
16:32:04 [BobLund]
BobLund has joined #html-media
16:32:08 [joesteele]
paulc: trying to encourage action on this
16:32:17 [joesteele]
... any objection to RESOLVE LATER?
16:32:29 [joesteele]
... add the comment about implementation experience
16:32:47 [joesteele]
... no objections
16:32:51 [joesteele]
Bug 20964
16:33:06 [paulc]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20964
16:33:10 [joesteele]
EME Supports content that depends on server with finit life
16:33:18 [joesteele]
s/finit /finite/
16:33:36 [joesteele]
paulc: was marked as dup but unmarked by reporter
16:33:54 [joesteele]
q+
16:34:46 [joesteele]
adrianba: look at the end
16:35:33 [joesteele]
adrianba: should just close this. Was agreed that the bugs title is a true statement
16:35:45 [joesteele]
paulc: resolve WONT FIX as this is not a bug
16:35:51 [adrianba]
s/adrianba/markw/
16:35:55 [joesteele]
... any disucssion?
16:36:04 [joesteele]
Bug 20966
16:36:15 [joesteele]
s/disucssion/discussion/
16:36:20 [paulc]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20966
16:36:39 [joesteele]
paulc: looks like a dup of 20965
16:37:26 [joesteele]
paulc: he agrees that is 20965 is resolved this bug is no longer relevant
16:38:07 [joesteele]
I think we could do something about 20965
16:38:08 [adrianba]
20965 has a comment added to the SOTD
16:38:16 [ddorwin]
2096
16:38:21 [joesteele]
pal: no discussion about this bug yet
16:38:27 [ddorwin]
oops. ignore.
16:38:30 [joesteele]
paulc: added as an open issue
16:38:37 [joesteele]
... treat this one as the same
16:38:52 [joesteele]
... can we treat them as siblings?
16:39:19 [joesteele]
pal: don't understand what the 20966 is saying
16:39:48 [joesteele]
markw: it seems to be saying that for EME to work you have to lose privacy and spec should explain that instead of glossing over
16:39:48 [pal]
s/pal/johnsim
16:41:36 [adrianba]
q+
16:41:59 [joesteele]
paulc: let's treat this as 20965 for now, other folks can add comments for more clarity
16:42:02 [paulc]
ack adrian
16:42:12 [joesteele]
q-
16:42:14 [paulc]
ack joes
16:42:35 [joesteele]
adrianba: comment that I added said this is an open issue
16:42:59 [joesteele]
... is the proposal to add this bug to that list?
16:43:03 [joesteele]
paulc: yes
16:43:25 [joesteele]
ddorwin: should we change the title of the bug?
16:43:55 [joesteele]
paulc: not sure we understand the bug enough to do that yet -- clarify what trivialize means in this context
16:44:31 [joesteele]
johnsim: need to get that clarification
16:44:44 [joesteele]
paulc: can you draw that out of the reporter John?
16:44:48 [joesteele]
johnsim: yes
16:44:59 [joesteele]
Bug 20967
16:45:24 [joesteele]
EME does not allow independent implementation
16:45:33 [joesteele]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20967
16:45:42 [joesteele]
paulc: this was re-opened
16:46:16 [joesteele]
paulc: he wants an independent implementation of the CDM
16:46:38 [joesteele]
pal: nothing in the spec that precludes this, specifically with a shim
16:47:10 [joesteele]
... if there is something that prevents the shim being written we should know about that
16:47:12 [joesteele]
q+
16:47:39 [joesteele]
paulc: should we use that argument in this argument?
16:47:52 [paulc]
ack joe
16:48:33 [markw]
q+
16:48:38 [paulc]
ack markw
16:48:48 [BobLund]
q+
16:49:05 [joesteele]
markw: we have said that CDM can use platform capabilities, the counters that come back for that are
16:49:15 [joesteele]
... 1. how are they defined and how
16:49:21 [joesteele]
... 2. how do I get access
16:49:34 [pal]
q+
16:49:41 [joesteele]
... 2. ok for proprietary platforms but what about open source?
16:49:43 [paulc]
ack bob
16:49:59 [joesteele]
boblund: nothing in EME that requires a shim to use platform capabilities
16:50:07 [joesteele]
... could be part of the user agent?
16:50:17 [joesteele]
markw: could be part of the UA
16:50:37 [joesteele]
boblund: premise of the bug is wrong then, the UA could provide this
16:50:40 [johnsim]
q+
16:50:43 [paulc]
ack pal
16:50:54 [joesteele]
pal: separate these issues, issue of the bug itself
16:51:14 [joesteele]
... does not allow independent implementation -- bug can be resolved purely on that basis
16:51:21 [joesteele]
... EME clearly does not disallow this
16:51:34 [paulc]
ack john
16:51:35 [joesteele]
... could explore the issue of how EME works with platform
16:51:58 [joesteele]
johnsim: independent implementation is the question here?
16:52:22 [joesteele]
... he is saying noone but the implementers would use this - but this is false
16:52:31 [adrianba]
q+
16:52:57 [joesteele]
johnsim: the phrase independent implementation is the meat of the bug
16:53:03 [joesteele]
... anyone could implement a CDM
16:53:28 [joesteele]
.. but commercial distributors use a lmited number of CDMs
16:53:42 [joesteele]
... since anyone can implement, the premise of the bug is wrong
16:53:50 [joesteele]
s/lmited/limited/
16:54:27 [joesteele]
adrianba: I think we can state that we propose the prior resolution that the CDM implementation is out of scope
16:55:00 [joesteele]
paulc: in the past we have use WONT FIX or NEEDS INFO
16:55:22 [joesteele]
adrianba: WONT FIX or NEEDS INFO works
16:55:29 [joesteele]
Bug 20968
16:55:33 [joesteele]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20968
16:55:51 [joesteele]
paulc: this has been re-opened
16:56:53 [joesteele]
pal: 2 aspects to this bug
16:57:18 [joesteele]
... bug as filed we cannot take action on without specific actions requested - could not resolve on that basis
16:58:02 [joesteele]
... more generally people interested in how EME could be implemented could be addressed by this group, but could be indepedent
16:58:11 [joesteele]
paulc: open another bug?
16:58:30 [joesteele]
pal: could get there based on the email threads we have seen - not another bug
16:58:45 [markw]
q+
16:58:49 [joesteele]
paulc: any other opinions?
16:58:56 [paulc]
ack adrian
16:58:59 [paulc]
ack markw
16:59:13 [joesteele]
markw: do we have a NON ISSUE resolution?
16:59:31 [joesteele]
... don't want to seem to ignore, but disagree with the premise of the bug
16:59:41 [joesteele]
pal: can resolve INVALID
17:00:15 [joesteele]
paulc: suggesting we mark as INVALID?
17:00:42 [joesteele]
adrianba: I think the spec is fine, but we could also use INVALID
17:00:54 [joesteele]
.. INVALID usually means that this is not a real bug, misreporting etc
17:01:06 [joesteele]
... but I am happy to use INVALID in this case
17:01:14 [joesteele]
paulc: we should use what is right
17:01:37 [joesteele]
adrianba: debatable if we mark INVALID, but current spec works for me
17:01:54 [joesteele]
paulc: we are stretching over time period
17:02:00 [joesteele]
ug 20977
17:02:19 [paulc]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20978
17:02:24 [joesteele]
s/ug 20977/Bug 20978/
17:02:37 [joesteele]
paulc: related ot 20963
17:02:46 [joesteele]
s/ ot/ to/
17:02:58 [joesteele]
paulc: that on was reopened
17:03:07 [joesteele]
s/on was/one was/
17:03:18 [joesteele]
paulc: can we treat this as 20963?
17:03:45 [joesteele]
... could mark this as a dup
17:04:08 [joesteele]
ddorwin: this is one were the CDM is not specified
17:04:15 [joesteele]
adrianba: we used that for a couple of bugs
17:04:27 [joesteele]
s/were the/where the/
17:05:05 [joesteele]
adrianba: 20963 says more things are needed in the spec, wrong level of granularity
17:05:27 [markw]
q+
17:05:31 [joesteele]
... this one says that if you specified this in the spec, the need for CDM would disappear
17:05:44 [paulc]
ack markw
17:05:56 [ddorwin]
Similar to this comment: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20961#c8
17:06:12 [joesteele]
markw: yes, there can be proprietary CDMs not expected to be object level plugins, could be generic plugins
17:06:59 [joesteele]
adrianba: comment #8 is the resolution we had previously used. we will use the same resolution
17:07:14 [joesteele]
Bug 20922
17:07:31 [joesteele]
EME should define a VM for CDMs to run in
17:08:16 [adrianba]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20992
17:08:20 [joesteele]
s/Bug 20922/Bug 20982/
17:08:41 [adrianba]
q+
17:08:53 [joesteele]
johnsim: this is specifying how CDMs work not how EME works
17:09:07 [joesteele]
ddorwin: this is also about the interop
17:09:18 [joesteele]
boblund: 1st sentence is incorrect on the face of it
17:09:39 [paulc]
ack adrian
17:10:08 [joesteele]
adrianba: I disagree with John here - I think this is trying to propose a different level of abstraction for CDMs
17:10:22 [joesteele]
... think it is about defining the environment for a CDM to run in
17:10:33 [joesteele]
... it is a proposal for how to solve the interop problem
17:10:41 [joesteele]
... could resolve as dup of 20944
17:11:03 [joesteele]
... include a note that the group disagrees abiout the purpose of the spec
17:11:13 [joesteele]
s/abiout/about/
17:11:18 [joesteele]
paulc: any comments?
17:11:37 [joesteele]
Bug 21081
17:11:58 [joesteele]
Requesting an analysis of open source DRMs that could be adopted
17:12:08 [joesteele]
paulc: this is a request for non-normative text
17:12:15 [joesteele]
... does not look to block FPWD
17:12:33 [joesteele]
paulc: is this resolved as 20944?
17:12:43 [joesteele]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21081
17:12:47 [adrianba]
q+
17:13:05 [joesteele]
paulc: anyone interested in doing this?
17:13:19 [joesteele]
johnsim: lots of confusion here, does not seem relevant to the EME spec
17:13:23 [pal]
q+
17:13:36 [paulc]
ack adrian
17:13:36 [joesteele]
boblund: agree with John
17:14:04 [ddorwin]
q+
17:14:07 [joesteele]
adrianba: think I replied that if someone wanted to do this investigation and report back to EME, that would be a good thing
17:14:19 [joesteele]
paulc: on the public or the media list?
17:14:28 [adrianba]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Feb/0104.html
17:15:45 [joesteele]
paulc: response is saying that this could be a simple exercise but would like to be better informed
17:16:18 [joesteele]
pal: is this group aware of specific features that would prevent the use of these for EME? or any specific DRMs?
17:16:21 [joesteele]
q+
17:16:31 [paulc]
ack pal
17:16:37 [paulc]
ack dd
17:16:43 [joesteele]
ddorwin: several issues
17:17:04 [joesteele]
... having more information to make a decision, having an informative note
17:17:36 [joesteele]
... the other is whether these open source ones can be used in combination with EME or as a replacement
17:17:40 [joesteele]
... lot of layers to this bug
17:17:47 [paulc]
ack joe
17:18:41 [joesteele]
joesteele: believe there are DRMs that could not be expressed through EME
17:18:51 [joesteele]
... but probably not these
17:19:12 [joesteele]
paulc: this look like possible examples of CDMs, resolve as dup of 20944?
17:19:27 [joesteele]
paulc: add an entry to 20944 pointing to this research
17:19:42 [pal]
q+
17:20:01 [joesteele]
johnsim: the premise of the bug is mistaken, hard to begin resolving it
17:20:15 [joesteele]
... the assumption seems to be there is an open source DRM that is IP free
17:20:20 [joesteele]
... that is not true
17:20:42 [pal]
q-
17:20:43 [joesteele]
... also was the intent to have a CDM that is baked in - that was ClearKey right?
17:21:10 [joesteele]
adrianba: agree that the topic is broad, but this bug is more speciifc about what can be learned from these open source efforts
17:21:25 [joesteele]
paulc: think this is a straight forward question
17:21:37 [joesteele]
... reporter is asking for more information
17:22:00 [joesteele]
markw: if anyone has the time to look at it, we could resolve this as an action for someone
17:22:31 [joesteele]
paulc: proposal is to resolve this as a dup of 20944 and point to these two as possible CDMs
17:22:54 [joesteele]
pal: read this as a narrow bug
17:23:12 [joesteele]
paulc: do we have an answer to the narrow question?
17:23:25 [joesteele]
pal: not sure who is using this, certainly on this call
17:24:02 [joesteele]
adrianba: could also resolve as NEEDS INFO pending further information on these DRMs
17:24:04 [BobLund]
+1 t o Adrian's proposal
17:24:16 [ddorwin]
+1
17:24:40 [joesteele]
paulc: let's move to next topic -- lots more bugs
17:24:53 [joesteele]
... need to go back and consider doing another CFC
17:25:03 [ddorwin]
One more bug: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21104
17:25:28 [joesteele]
... need to talk to my co-chairs and look for guidance on how to proceed
17:25:44 [joesteele]
... come back via email to the group
17:25:50 [pal]
q+
17:25:51 [joesteele]
Bug 21104
17:26:39 [joesteele]
pal: can we determine programmatically whether the decrypted video is available in plaintext?
17:26:42 [markw]
Q+
17:27:04 [joesteele]
markw: the video element can have images captured on the Canvas
17:27:21 [joesteele]
... if this is possible, that would be evidence for the Javascript
17:27:47 [joesteele]
... I would expect if someone integrates this into a UA I would expect this to be disabled
17:28:09 [joesteele]
pal: no doubt it will be disabled, but how does application determine?
17:28:19 [joesteele]
... do I get an error? black?
17:28:28 [joesteele]
markw: no discussion on this point
17:28:35 [adrianba]
q+
17:28:42 [joesteele]
.. not familiar with all the cases it supports
17:28:43 [paulc]
ack pal
17:29:14 [markw]
q+
17:29:18 [joesteele]
pal: reading naively, if a way was provided for JS to determine might satisfy the bug
17:29:48 [pal]
+
17:29:50 [pal]
q+
17:29:58 [paulc]
ack markw
17:29:59 [joesteele]
ddorwin: goes to "real DRM" versus "fake DRM"
17:30:26 [joesteele]
adrianba: this is about driving a wedge between hard DRM and other DRM
17:30:37 [adrianba]
s/adrianba/markw/
17:30:41 [joesteele]
... don't think this is a useful distinction
17:30:50 [paulc]
ack adrian
17:30:53 [joesteele]
.. DRM is still useful lin this case
17:31:17 [paulc]
ack pal
17:31:51 [joesteele]
pal: if there were a technical means of answering his question, I think that would resolve it
17:32:03 [joesteele]
paulc: any options for resolving?
17:32:12 [joesteele]
... may not want to go here
17:32:26 [joesteele]
markw: reasonable to say that this is not technically useful
17:32:34 [joesteele]
... close of WONT FIX
17:32:41 [joesteele]
s/close of/close as/
17:33:04 [joesteele]
ddorwin: talks about privacy implications, but we can leave that for discussion of other bugs
17:33:49 [joesteele]
s/useful lin/useful in/
17:34:24 [joesteele]
paulc: Henri objection is pointing to the IEFT spec
17:34:29 [joesteele]
... anything else to discuss?
17:34:48 [joesteele]
... Ball is now in my court to go back to co-chairs and discuss
17:34:50 [adrianba]
The privacy issue can be discussed as part of bug 20965, etc.
17:35:00 [markw]
q+
17:35:15 [joesteele]
... have dealt with technical matters in 1st pass, bugs may not stay resolved, but want to know if sufficient for CFC again
17:35:20 [paulc]
ack markw
17:36:04 [joesteele]
markw: would it be appropriate to ask Rob Calahan if the resolutions are sufficient for his bug?
17:36:22 [joesteele]
paulc: that is for the chairs to decide, don't have to be bug-free
17:36:59 [joesteele]
markw: so chairs can say this is sufficient?
17:37:19 [joesteele]
paulc: yes. I want to ask if they are ready to say that
17:37:58 [joesteele]
paulc: thanks for everyones patience. In Geneva next week, try to get something to chairs tomorrow
17:38:11 [ddorwin]
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944
17:38:16 [joesteele]
ddorwin: one last thing -- the title change for the last bug
17:38:40 [joesteele]
... individualization was added
17:38:55 [joesteele]
... should hack off as a separate bug?
17:39:04 [joesteele]
paulc: yes - encourage to file a separate bug
17:39:26 [joesteele]
paulc: meeting next week is MSE, EME in two weeks
17:39:51 [joesteele]
... hopefully can come up with a list of technical items you would like to address
17:40:00 [paulc]
rrsagent, make the minutes
17:40:00 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/02/26-html-media-minutes.html paulc
17:40:01 [joesteele]
paulc: meeting adjourned
17:40:40 [joesteele]
Zakim, who was here?
17:40:40 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, joesteele.
17:40:45 [joesteele]
Zakim, who is here?
17:40:45 [Zakim]
I notice HTML_WG()11:00AM has restarted
17:40:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see joesteele
17:40:46 [Zakim]
On IRC I see johnsim, paulc, markw, ddorwin, joesteele, Zakim, RRSAgent, adrianba, glenn, wseltzer, trackbot
17:41:09 [Zakim]
-joesteele
17:41:10 [Zakim]
HTML_WG()11:00AM has ended
17:41:10 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.425.269.aaaa, ddorwin, joesteele, pal, markw, paulc, [Microsoft], adrianba, +1.303.503.aabb, boblund
17:42:09 [joesteele]
Meeting: HTML EME Teleconference
17:42:24 [joesteele]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:42:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/02/26-html-media-minutes.html joesteele
17:42:54 [joesteele]
Zakim, bye
17:42:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #html-media
17:48:45 [joesteele]
rrsagent, bye
17:48:45 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items