Meeting minutes
Update about TPAC
mounir: We resolved to have a joint discussion with WebCodecs. TPAC has been moved to a fully virtual conference.
tidoust: Group can choose to meet at any time, not necessarily tied to TPAC.
hober: It might be smart to try to time a virtual F2F at least 2 weeks away from TPAC, if not more. The virtual TPAC will be likely focused on meetings that span multiple groups, as the usual Wednesday. I think we should aim for a F2F a month out from TPAC.
mounir: This sounds good, thank you.
… I think we should keep our usual schedule.
… Also organize a meeting with WebCodecs folks around TPAC.
cpn: That sounds good. Note that I'm planning to invite WebCodecs folks to the Media & Entertainment IG next month or so. Everyone here would be most welcome.
Debrief in CTA WAVE on Media Capabilities
jernoble: I was invited to the CTA WAVE organization. There is overlap in participation between organizations.
… They are trying to write a polyfill that, given a piece of media, will pull out the properties of the media and convert them into a request to Media Capabilities.
jernoble: They identified properties that cannot be queried through Media Capabilities.
… I tried to clarify with them design considerations, including fingerprinting issues.
… The MPEG Coding-Independent code point specification describes properties for a bunch of codecs, including properties that have not been captured in Media Capabilities.
… What I expect to come out of that is a bunch of issues against the Media Capabilities API.
… A liaison statement from our group to the CTA WAVE could be an option, to cover cases where CTA participants cannot directly contribute to W3C.
Triage MSE/EME issues
tidoust: there are a bunch of open issues for MSE and a bunch of open issues for EME, most are accumulated historical issues
tidoust: some of them have been flagged when they were in HTLM WG but many of these flags are no longer relevant as part of this group
tidoust: we should update these flags so they better reflect what the Media WG is planning to work or not
tidoust: I'm not the right person to do that but happy to help
tidoust: I would like to make sure it's clear internally and externally what we are working on
wolenetz: A lot of open issues are trivial, some of them are relevant. No editors from Microsoft for now?
mounir: Last time we asked, they said they would have no editors for MSE.
wolenetz: So 2 editors for MSE vNext. Mark Watson and myself. We could take the time on the call, but Mark is not around. I'll sync up with him.
… If there are issues that you believe should be addressed for vNext, add a comment to them.
… Right now, "vNext" is the spec we're working on right now. We should probably have a "v2" label.
… 45 of the open issues don't even have a milestone yet.
… Joey, from the EME side, will do the same thing for EME.
mounir: One of the ask is to differentiate what is the new vNext and what will be postponed to the future.
wolenetz: sounds good.
Media Playback Quality
mounir: We are at the stage where we could go and publish a FPWD of the Media Playback Quality specification. Also, we had some feedback from folks that this spec should be merged in the HTML spec. Is it something that people feel strongly about one way or the other?
jernoble: I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other. It is such a small spec that it probably belongs to the HTML spec.
jernoble: Unless we take over the whole media section of the HTML spec, I think it fits well within the video section in the HTML spec.
mounir: Are you aware of any change compared to what's in the spec?
jernoble: Not aware of any.
mounir: We also have an open issue about what to do with the whole media section, but no update on that so far.
… What would be the best way to proceed?
… It is an official deliverable of the WG.
… Should we resolve to take the spec to HTML LS?
tidoust: Sounds like a good first step. I'll check internally possible other steps.
wolenetz: I note that MSE references Media Playback Quality.
… with a non-normative link.
nigel: We're talking about FPWD for this but it already has some deprecated feature in it. How do you plan to deal with it?
… Having a deprecated feature in a spec that has never been published for real seems weird.
mounir: This used to be part of MSE, and was in the FPWD of MSE.
… The section got pruned to its own spec on the way to Rec.
… That property is still available in some browsers, so we need to keep the property around to explain the situation.
Resolution: send an official vote to check what the WG wants to do with regards to merging the specification
Picture-in-Picture
mounir: Implemented by Apple and Google. We have most of what we need to move to CR.
… Most open issues can probably be marked with a vNext flag.
… Only one to solve is naming issue on pseudo-class.
… I wanted to check how people felt about moving to CR?
jernoble: Off the top of my head, I don't know of any feature that Apple is willing to see added to the spec before it goes to CR.
mounir: OK, I'll check with François Beaufort. We may need to check the test suite.
Video-* media queries
cpn: I wanted to mention briefly that the CSS WG has some of the video-* media queries on their agenda.
… video-width and video-height.
… Please do join the call if you're interested in those.
jernoble: This is the video-* prefixed viewport width and height, right?
cpn: That's right.
… Two parts to the media capabilities story. The API talks about the decoding capability, and CSS media display rendering capabilities.
jernoble: Tess, do you have the relevant context? Or would you want me to show up in the CSS WG?
tess: Either way. You're welcome to join.
jernoble: OK, we'll coordinate offline to make sure the Media WG gets represented.
cpn: Nigel and I will be there as well.
jernoble: This query is really for devices that have different plane capabilities for video and graphics. Set-top boxes and TVs in practice, right?
cpn: That's right.