15:50:54 RRSAgent has joined #html-media
15:50:54 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/12/17-html-media-irc
15:50:56 RRSAgent, make logs public
15:50:56 Zakim has joined #html-media
15:50:58 Zakim, this will be 63342
15:50:58 ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
15:50:59 Meeting: HTML Media Task Force Teleconference
15:50:59 Date: 17 December 2013
15:57:36 pladd has joined #html-media
15:58:49 HTML_WG()11:00AM has now started
15:58:55 +pladd
15:59:13 zakim, what is the code?
15:59:13 the conference code is 63342 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), paulc
15:59:29 +[Microsoft]
15:59:41 zakim, [Microsoft] is me
15:59:41 +paulc; got it
16:00:08 +markw
16:00:14 ddorwin has joined #html-media
16:00:39 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Dec/0029.html
16:01:04 acolwell has joined #html-media
16:01:30 markw has joined #html-media
16:01:33 +Aaron_Colwell
16:01:36 joesteele has joined #html-media
16:01:40 Zakim, who is on the phone ?
16:01:40 On the phone I see pladd, paulc, markw, Aaron_Colwell
16:02:20 +AWK
16:02:26 Zakim, AWK is me
16:02:26 +joesteele; got it
16:02:44 zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:44 On the phone I see pladd, paulc, markw, Aaron_Colwell, joesteele
16:02:57 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Dec/0029.html
16:03:20 +[Microsoft]
16:03:26 zakim, [Microsoft] is me
16:03:26 +adrianba; got it
16:03:52 +ddorwin
16:05:02 ScribeNick: joesteele
16:05:03 zakim, who is on the phone?
16:05:03 On the phone I see pladd, paulc, markw, Aaron_Colwell, joesteele, adrianba, ddorwin
16:05:23 scribe: joesteele
16:05:26 chair: paulc
16:05:37 topic: role call
16:05:43 Zakim, who is here?
16:05:43 On the phone I see pladd, paulc, markw, Aaron_Colwell, joesteele, adrianba, ddorwin
16:05:45 On IRC I see joesteele, markw, acolwell, ddorwin, pladd, Zakim, RRSAgent, paulc, adrianba, wseltzer, trackbot
16:05:59 Topic: MSE Status and bugs
16:06:11 ACTION-60?
16:06:11 ACTION-60 -- Adrian Bateman to Produce a summary of last call comments dispositions -- due 2013-12-10 -- OPEN
16:06:11 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/60
16:06:17 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/MSE_LC_Comments
16:06:24 paulc: Adrian -- status report?
16:06:39 ... done?
16:06:46 adrianba: yes
16:07:02 close ACTION-60
16:07:02 Closed ACTION-60.
16:07:05 paulc: ACTION-60 is done then
16:07:17 Topic: Bug#23661
16:07:28 paulc: response from Accessbility TF
16:07:33 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Dec/0016.html
16:07:39 s/Accessbility/Accessibility/
16:07:52 paulc: Charles sent a long response overnight
16:08:02 ... he is in Spain -- tried to get in before thi smorning
16:08:10 s/thi smorning/this morning/
16:08:12 Charles's last response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Dec/0033.html
16:08:34 ... still need for folks to review
16:08:42 ... could approach in a couple of ways
16:08:51 ... response looks directed at Aaron
16:09:02 ... or could open a general discussion
16:09:18 ... request is to add a non-normative note talking about support for multiple tracks
16:09:26 A11Y TF is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2013Dec/0051.html
16:09:56 ... most of discussion is centered around whether item should go in MSE or be an HTML5 bug, or whether is supported already
16:10:09 ... anyone want a couplf of minutes to review?
16:10:24 s/couplf/couple/
16:11:23 q+
16:11:39 q+
16:12:20 q?
16:13:19 q?
16:14:13 ack adrian
16:14:44 adrianba: MSE spec has a single goal -- to allow JS to generate the media stream for the element
16:15:05 ... anything to do with handling or processing of tracks is out of scope for MSE
16:15:33 ... think the discussion boils down to "should there be an information note in MSE that describes this handling or should it go into the HTML5 spec?"
16:16:06 ... I supported this not because this is already working but because there is already a dependancy on HTML5
16:16:27 paulc: Adrian - do you believe the bug reflects our response?
16:16:40 adrianba: could add more text to the resolution
16:16:55 paulc: adding pointer to the bug
16:17:09 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23661
16:17:23 ack ac
16:17:47 s/this handling/this handling, which is out of scope for MSE,/
16:17:49 acolwell: I agree with Adrian, think there is some confusion on what the restriction in the MSE spec is actually restricting
16:18:12 ... MediaGroup is not restricted in availablility by the spec
16:18:42 ... my assumption about changes to the spec was that a single element be allowed to support multiple videos
16:18:53 ... this is what would require a change to the HTML spec
16:19:06 ... sign language is already supported
16:19:08 q+
16:19:35 ack markw
16:20:01 markw: think that this is a misunderstanding that you would want to do this with one media element
16:20:34 ... don't know whether there is any interation between MediaController and MediaSource - so not sure about whether a note would help
16:21:02 a11Y TF proposed text: "NOTE: This specification directly supports multiple tracks. It explicitly extends the AudioTrack and VideoTrack interfaces to allow programmatic control of track kind to enable ,a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/">Alternative Media scenarios, including simultaneous multiple video tracks in support of Sign Language Translation video tra[CUT]
16:21:03 acolwell: they are not really related that way
16:21:20 ... I will send out a response trying to clarify the misunderstanding
16:21:35 paulc: can we speak directly to the proposed text?
16:21:48 ... one issue is adding the text, second is the text itself
16:22:02 ... text was added above
16:22:17 ... want to provide direct feedback
16:23:15 acolwell: I did speak to the programmatic control of the kind attribute, this seems to be conveying information not in the container file
16:23:28 ... that was not the intent
16:23:50 ... intent was that tracks with a kind that was not specified in the media file could modify the track to expose it to Javascript
16:24:02 ... not intended to enable extra use cases or new functionality
16:24:14 ... let me look in the log
16:25:33 ... in my first response I said that the extensions to the audio/video track were not about enabling additional functionality ...
16:25:53 paulc: that is key, like to emphasize that point
16:26:17 ... that content of the proposed text is not correct, regardless of where it should be added
16:26:28 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23661
16:26:52 acolwell: seems that many of the media requirements are requirements on the element, not on the data source
16:27:01 A11Y TF discussion was added to do the bug via: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23661#c3
16:27:12 ... MediaSource is just a data source, some data sources do not provide accessibility content
16:27:32 ... does not mean HTML5 in general is not accessible
16:27:43 q1: is the proposed text from the A11Y TF appropriate ie correct?
16:27:44 paulc: 2 questions --
16:27:52 ... is proposed text correct?
16:28:13 q2: Assuming the text is correct or could be corrected, should it be added to MSE or to somewhere in HTML5?
16:28:14 ... assuming text is correct or could be corrected, should it be added to the MSE spec or to somewhere in HTML5?
16:28:35 ... answer to Q1 is -- text is not correct
16:28:58 ... answer to Q2 is -- should be added to HTML5 -- maybe you can suggest where -- video element?
16:29:13 ... anyone disagree with the Media TF position?
16:29:38 ... I believe we should take that information and respond on the email thread and the bug
16:29:47 ... Media TF would like to retain as WORKS FOR ME
16:30:35 BobLund has joined #html-media
16:30:45 adrianba: I want to be clear I resolved this as a result of the conversation on a conference call
16:31:11 paulc: I heard Aaron will respond to email thread, and editors will respond to the bug
16:31:22 ... include in both responses the answers we outlined above
16:31:26 ... agreed?
16:31:51 paulc: current schedule for MSE closes at midnight tomorrow
16:32:09 ... with these responses we may get an objection - I will deal with it
16:32:44 ... in anticipation of CFC passing, have arranged for call with Phillippe and Ralf after the WG meeting Thursday @ 1PM EST, 10AM PST
16:32:55 ... minimum required is me, Phillippe and Ralf
16:33:08 +BobLund
16:33:15 ... interested in having editors present -- any available?
16:33:35 adrianba: I can do it
16:33:40 acolwell: I can also
16:33:55 paulc: Mark I will make sure you get the logistics as well
16:34:01 markw: I think I can also
16:34:16 paulc: this that closes MSE
16:34:27 Topic: EME status and bugs
16:35:01 paulc: two action items pending
16:35:05 ACTION-61?
16:35:05 ACTION-61 -- Paul Cotton to Work with wendy to make sure we get a security review of eme -- due 2013-12-10 -- OPEN
16:35:05 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/61
16:35:05 ACTION-61?
16:35:06 ACTION-61 -- Paul Cotton to Work with wendy to make sure we get a security review of eme -- due 2013-12-10 -- OPEN
16:35:06 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/61
16:35:22 paulc: you have seen my attempt to remind Wendy of the discussion at the F2F
16:35:25 Paul's execution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Dec/0028.html
16:35:37 -61 is opne
16:35:45 s/opne/open/
16:35:50 ACTION-62?
16:35:50 ACTION-62 -- Paul Cotton to Report back about the plan for 20944 due 2013-12-15 -- due 2013-12-10 -- OPEN
16:35:50 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/62
16:35:50 s/opne/open/
16:36:13 Topic: Bug#18515
16:36:17 Bug 18515 - Provide more details on behavior of the media element when the key for an encrypted block is not available
16:36:22 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18515
16:36:32 ACTION-51?
16:36:32 ACTION-51 -- Adrian Bateman to Remind jdsmith to write a proposal for bug 18515 -- due 2013-11-05 -- OPEN
16:36:32 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/51
16:36:50 paulc: action 51 is still pending here
16:37:17 adrianba: think Jerry is on vacation, had a brief discussion on Friday about this bug, not sure if he has the proposal yet
16:37:34 ... bug is about how to indicate to an app that playback is blocked waiting for a key
16:38:03 ... previously discussion that we should not change the ready state of the media element as could impact other use cases
16:38:18 ... e.g. fooling app into making a bit rate change
16:38:27 ... so pending question is how to convey?
16:38:50 ... at TPAC outlined some of the discussion we had about extending the WAITING event
16:39:12 ... today it is purely network, could extend it with a reason e.g. network, keys
16:39:24 ... had a discussion about adding this to the media element
16:39:42 ... discussion is happening -- need to write up the results
16:39:53 ... I can take a stab at recording that in the bug
16:40:03 ... when Jerry comes back he can review
16:40:12 paulc: any comments?
16:40:23 Topic: Bug#24082
16:40:25 Bug 24082 - Several issues discussed in the TF point to the need for defined extensibility points in EME
16:40:31 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24082
16:40:49 ACTION-54?
16:40:49 ACTION-54 -- Adrian Bateman to Revive bug 17660 -- due 2013-11-05 -- CLOSED
16:40:49 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/54
16:40:50 ACTION-54?
16:40:50 ACTION-54 -- Adrian Bateman to Revive bug 17660 -- due 2013-11-05 -- CLOSED
16:40:50 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/54
16:41:02 paulc: that action is closed
16:41:21 adrianba: this is a topic that need more discussion
16:41:52 ... my action was about 17660 about the shape of the API
16:42:02 ... Joe added some comments that changed the intent slightly
16:42:27 ... proposed a mechanism for a local conversation between the app and the CDM
16:42:54 ... Microsoft had some information they would like conveyed during the license acquisition
16:43:26 ... David added a bug about providing additional constructor data for the CDM
16:43:50 ... all of these issues relate to some people having requirements for extending beyond the core interop EME API
16:44:05 ... a need for an extension point for some scenarios
16:44:43 ... think we agree we want multiple CDMs to be able to playback the same content without major changes in behavior
16:45:01 ... it seems like there are other requirements as well -- not just that goal
16:45:29 ... question I pose it "should we do something active to describe extension points, so it occurs within the framework in the spec?"
16:45:41 ... upside is everyone will extend the same way
16:45:59 ... Joe had proposed passing information via the URL attribute
16:46:12 ... would prefer to have an explicit place to put the data
16:46:30 ... downside is that folks would perceive this as less interoperable
16:47:21 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17660 is the old bug
16:50:27 joesteele: I agree that this should be discussed
16:50:49 ... my proposal is a good indication of my intent
16:51:02 q+
16:51:09 ack dd
16:51:10 adrianba: would like to hear whether the gorup agrees that this i something that should be discussed
16:51:22 ddorwin: I am concerned about what this does for interop
16:51:52 ... see boxing different extensions into a different uniform model as an advantage
16:52:17 ... concerned that folks will be lazy and not implement in an interoperabl way
16:52:28 paulc: can you explain more?
16:52:51 ... does this mean folks will use an an argument against interop?
16:52:54 ddorwin: yes
16:53:15 adrianba: I recognize the disadvantages, but since this is going to happen anyway to some extent
16:53:36 ... if we do not tackle this it could make things more difficult in the future
16:53:53 ... folks might extend the spec in ways that will make future extensions harder
16:54:09 ... recognize what David is saying
16:54:18 ... will make the discussion around interop harder
16:54:29 q+
16:54:35 ... could wait and see what will happen - but that may make it harder
16:54:43 ack dd
16:55:06 ddorwin: not opposed to having separate control messages that are common
16:55:19 ... not a way for an app to do things that are not requesting a license
16:55:26 ... will add comments in the bug
16:55:47 paulc: adrian, would you proposing that CDMs would publish their parameters for folks to use?
16:56:03 adrianba: not proposing but I imagine that would happen
16:56:17 ... no proposal for what this would look like
16:56:41 paulc: does anyone else want to respond to this?
16:57:03 markw: don't have a comment right now, but think we need a proposal
16:57:08 q+
16:57:17 ack joe
16:57:55 q+
16:58:03 ack ad
16:58:03 q+
16:58:13 joesteele: we have at least one proposal now -- would like to see others
16:58:31 q+
16:58:58 adrianba: problem is broader that that proposal addresses, another proposal is adding data to the createSession and CDM constructor
16:59:07 ... could also add to the update call
16:59:40 ... should we tackle this directly, or say that we should not handle this and allow folks to make the extensions they want.
16:59:49 ack dd
17:00:20 ddorwin: it would help if we had real use cases, we have Adobes case and Microsofts case, do we have others?
17:00:25 ... that would help us shape the discussion
17:00:31 My comment about a concrete proposal was to ask whether there are use-cases that should be supported in an interoperable way with first-class extensions to the specification
17:00:33 ack bob
17:00:44 rrsagent, generate minutes
17:00:44 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/12/17-html-media-minutes.html paulc
17:00:47 BobLund: think I agree with Adrian about other uses cases
17:01:13 paulc: that might not be a proposal, but a list of uses cases would be a good next step
17:01:21 s/uses cases/use cases/
17:01:23 Would also like to understand the advantage of standardizing new EME-specific extensibility points vs using the existing extensibility point of prefixed methods
17:01:40 paulc: please get the MSE items done ASAP - before the Thursday meeting
17:02:26