W3C

- DRAFT -

Web and TV IG - Media APIs TF call

11 Dec 2013

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Wook, Kaz, Paul, JC, Sunghei, Giri, Daniel, Giuseppe, Bin, Sheau, Louay, Igarashi
Regrets
Cyril, Rickelton-Abdi
Chair
Bin
Scribe
Giuseppe

Contents


gap analysis

<Bin_Hu> gap analysis document

Bin: it seems we only have few question marks to address
... also need to finilize email discussions

Bin: NSD doesn't have device autentication in scope
... so B11 should probably be blank
... do people agree? no objection
... req7 (B12) also should go to blank, agree? agreed
... for B12, there is ongoing discussion on the mailing list, so let's take it later.
... let's go to col C
... I propose to set C9 blank as HTML5 doesn't address authentication directly
... agreed? No objection

(C9, C10, C11 turned into blank)

Bin: col D only one comment on tuner API, how should we resolve it

giuseppe: it will be solved as part of the tuner API discussion, so comment can be closed

Bin: one left, D30

Giri: recording is part of WebRTC
... is probably reasonable to say that is not in scope for HTML5
... but maybe there should be something in html5.1 to make recording of a video element possible

giuseppe: then maybe we should leave it red as would be good to bring it up with the HTML WG

Giri: yes I agree, but one comment here
... there is a green in the webrtc column because for some use cases WebRTC can certainly be used
... but this is not for all use cases

Sheau: if we have a red here, shouldn't we say the same for authentication?

Giri: I'm not sure what the relevance is for html5 of all of them

giuseppe: I think the requirement is too highlevel to drive work/discussion in HTML5
... if we want something to happen we need to dive into the details
... and point out what is missing

Giri: agree
... [makes some examples from the TV industry]

Sheau: it seems to me that at this point we don't know exactly what we mean
... so we don't have enough elements to decide
... maybe we should actually put green as html5 enables authentication

giuseppe: I agree with Sheau

Bin: so let's close D30 red
... and let's change D9-10-11 to green
... same for c9-10-11

<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask if "HTML 5.1" here means "possible HTML extensions other than all the existing specs"

Kaz: It seems this "HTML 5.1" category includes not only the requirements for the existing 5.1 extensions but also those for the possible new HTML 5.X spec.
... So I'm wondering if we should split the html5.1 column into two, (1) the existing HTML 5.1 and (2) the future version of 5.x.

giuseppe: no.

Bin: no

Kaz: OK. Let's continue to use "HTML 5.1" as the label then

Bin: I propose to address question marks first
... next is G27
... there is a suggestion to leave that blank
... since the eme doesn't prevent nor prescribe support for offline, is not a matter of spec but of implementation
... what do you think?

giuseppe: agree

Bin: any objection? none
... after that there is column J
... J6/7 proposal to leave it blank

since the req. is not related to offline storage capability

Bin: any objection? none
... same applies to other questionmarks in column J
... J19 and J16

Bin: going back to Column E (WebRTC)

giuseppe: maybe if we look at the tuner and recording gaps what we really miss is a way to model a broadcast stream that can be later used with video element
... recording API etc

Bin: so the proposed conclusion seems to be that maybe that for the recording requirement can be addresses togheter to the tuner discussion

JC: maybe this is a good hint also on what is the tuner discussion about and could suggest what name to give or how to characterize it

Giri: we can probably ask the recording TF for clarification on how those APIs are intended to be used

giuseppe: maybe we should wrap up first

Sheau: there are some requirements like rights control specific of the broadcast stream that needs to be captured
... and that we need to make sure are not lost when the stream is abstracted into a video element

Bin: conclusion is to wrap up the gap analysis first and then we follow-up with relevant WGs
... comment on web storage and storage requirements

giuseppe: yes I think is not applicable as you wouldn't record large amount of data using web storage

Bin: ok. so agreed to make this blank

Bin: Column G, keep the comment at G29

Bin: other comments seem to be just clarifications on how things work
... seems we are done. So the next step is to capture the gap analysis
... how do we formalize this?

giuseppe: we can follow what other TFs have done

giuseppe: (put URLs of the previous TF requirements)

-> http://www.w3.org/TR/hnreq/ Home Network TF Requirements

-> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webtv/raw-file/tip/mpreq/adbreq.html MPTF Requirements

-> http://www.w3.org/TR/hnreq/#categorization-of-requirements-and-next-steps Requirements categorization (in the HNTF Requirements doc)

Bin: so what are the next steps?

Giuseppe: I can edit a document that includes requirements and use cases from the wiki (for now)

Bin: I can prepare a strawman gap analysis based on the discussion so far

<scribe> ACTION: giuseppe to start editing a req. document for this TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/11-webtv-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-178 - Start editing a req. document for this tf [on Giuseppe Pascale - due 2013-12-18].

<scribe> ACTION: Bin to prepare a strawman gap analysis [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/11-webtv-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-179 - Prepare a strawman gap analysis [on Bin Hu - due 2013-12-18].

Bin: any other biz? no

<jcverdie> Thanks a lot Bin:)

<kaz> [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Bin to prepare a strawman gap analysis [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/11-webtv-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: giuseppe to start editing a req. document for this TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/11-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-12-11 17:17:57 $