21:01:43 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #mediawg
21:01:43 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/07/13-mediawg-irc
21:01:49 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #mediawg
21:01:53 <tidoust> Meeting: Media WG Call
21:02:16 <tidoust> Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/media-wg/blob/main/meetings/2021-07-13-Media_Working_Group_Teleconference-agenda.md
21:02:21 <tidoust> RRSAgent, make logs public
21:02:29 <tidoust> Chair: Chris, Jer
21:02:53 <markw> markw has joined #mediawg
21:03:02 <chcunningham> chcunningham has joined #mediawg
21:03:14 <alwu> alwu has joined #mediawg
21:03:42 <chcunningham> present+
21:04:05 <jernoble> jernoble has joined #mediawg
21:04:12 <tidoust> present+ Francois_Daoust, Bernard_Aboba, Chris_Cunningham, Chris_Needham, Dale_Curtis, Greg_Freedman, Jan-Ivar_Bruaroey, Jer_Noble, Joey_Parrish, Mark_Watson, Peng_Liu, Thomas_Guilbert,
21:04:13 <jernoble> present+
21:04:19 <wolenetz> present+
21:04:23 <tidoust> present+ Zachary_Cava
21:04:37 <tidoust> present+ Gary_Katsevman
21:04:59 <zacharycava> zacharycava has joined #mediawg
21:05:09 <markw> present+
21:05:29 <gregwf> gregwf has joined #mediawg
21:05:42 <jernoble> scribe: jer
21:05:45 <jernoble> scribe: jernoble
21:07:06 <tidoust> present+ Matt_Wolenetz, Tess_O_Connor
21:07:09 <wolenetz> q+ about MSEv2
21:07:13 <tidoust> RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:07:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/13-mediawg-minutes.html tidoust
21:07:36 <jernoble> Topic: Rechartering and Open UI collaboration - tidoust
21:07:42 <wolenetz> q- about
21:07:44 <wolenetz> q- MSEv2
21:08:42 <jib> jib has joined #mediawg
21:08:49 <jernoble> tidoust: During AC meeting review of the draft charter, it was suggested to add a coordination to Open UI collaboration CG
21:09:36 <jernoble> tidoust: Open UI CG interest is in harmonizing native controls across browsers, establishing guidelines in UIs
21:09:48 <jernoble> tidoust: Interest in media controls as well
21:10:03 <jernoble> tidoust: suggestion is to coordinate with them as they seek input from media experts
21:10:29 <jernoble> tidoust: Draft charter is under final approval and should be complete very soon
21:11:24 <jernoble> Topic: CfC: Should WebCodecs be exposed in Window environments?
21:12:32 <tidoust> -> https://github.com/w3c/webcodecs/issues/211 Should WebCodecs be exposed in Window environments?
21:13:12 <jernoble> bernard: Q about the interaction between WebCodecs and machine learning
21:13:26 <jernoble> bernard: haven't seen much data about that interaction
21:14:29 <jernoble> chcunningham: if ML wants to ingest video, we can expose the video frame wherever its needed
21:14:53 <jernoble> bernard: the Q is about, e.g., does WebNN work well with WebCodecs
21:15:17 <jernoble> dale: In Chrome, we have been working with WebGPU to ensure our implementation will work well with WebCodecs
21:15:39 <jernoble> dale: we should make sure we're aligned there, but it's slightly orthogonal
21:15:53 <jernoble> cpn: thanks everyone for your replies and patience w.r.t. the CfC process
21:17:03 <jernoble> cpn: summarizing my own view, the availability of other apis in a worker context has been raised as a concern, things like WebAudio or OffscreenCanvas are unavailable or unavailable on workers could hurt adoption
21:17:41 <jernoble> cpn: w.r.t. the difficulties of using workers in and of themselves, restricting to a worker makes it harder to use the API
21:18:12 <jernoble> jan-ivar: what's the result of the CfC?
21:18:39 <jernoble> cpn: The replies have not brought up new information; the positions are similar as already stated
21:19:14 <jernoble> cpn: we've heard from all the implementors and many application developers (the overwhelming majority of which support exposing to worker)
21:19:37 <jernoble> cpn: the primary views supporting deferring the decision were Apple and Mozilla
21:20:08 <jib> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18OFTfCuZvcEbq_Xmt9VxMqEflV02Z8_2YODDXD_XdFg/edit#heading=h.4fmosb1x3t5w
21:20:12 <jernoble> jean-ivar: Mozilla's position stands; we have data to share about performance concerns we'd be willing to share
21:21:41 <jernoble> jean-ivar: our data shows jank in the test case provided by dale
21:22:10 <jernoble> dale: those sites with lots of scrolling are not the primary targets of web codecs
21:22:30 <jernoble> dale: think it's unlikely that sites will choose WebCodecs as  their primary media playback engine
21:23:02 <jernoble> dale: our job is not to police the entire internet, and keep people from doing bad things
21:23:31 <jernoble> jean-ivar: i think it was a lack of ambition if we say that only SPA apps and simple pages will use WebCodecs
21:23:54 <jernoble> jean-ivar: I'm sure advertisers are going to use this as well; it will be used in many places, and we would like that to not be janky
21:23:57 <jernoble> q+
21:24:07 <jernoble> cpn: we would like the bad cases to be in the 95th percentile
21:24:22 <jernoble> cpn: "you can't save everyone"
21:24:27 <cpn> s/cpn/dale/
21:24:48 <jernoble> jean-ivar: it depends on how you measure "everyone". Major sites will get this right, but there's going to be a long tail of sites that will use this
21:24:58 <jernoble> * apologies cpn!
21:25:04 <tidoust> ack jernoble
21:25:07 <tidoust> scribe+
21:25:25 <tidoust> jernoble: One concern I have with exposing in Window is that it doesn't to be a use case that we have.
21:25:53 <tidoust> ... We could try to mitigate some of those for sites that need to run on main thread.
21:26:34 <tidoust> ... If we do decide as a group that Window is a target that we want, I think we need to do a better job at queueing
21:26:45 <tidoust> Dale: For clarity, there is a queueing mechanism.
21:27:28 <tidoust> ... The only problem on main thread is throughput, maintaining 60fps, but queues are being used.
21:27:37 <tidoust> jernoble: OK, I wasn't aware of it.
21:27:46 <tidoust> ... Then some amount of jitter buffer is doable
21:27:53 <tidoust> dale: Yes, completely.
21:28:19 <tidoust> ... Single-frame latency queue, no one is doing that, 3-4 frames are common.
21:29:22 <tidoust> Bernard: All of our issues relate to pre-processing and post-processing, you can't just take WebCodecs into accounts.
21:29:34 <tidoust> ... WebCodecs is a tiny piece of the whole processing workflow.
21:30:09 <tidoust> ... If you tell developers that there's a wrong way to do things early on, they will do it the right way.
21:30:10 <cpn> q?
21:30:44 <jernoble> scribe+
21:31:07 <jernoble> jean-ivar: Google announced an intent to ship of a new API, the question of whether to expose that API to window was tied to this issue
21:31:22 <jernoble> jean-ivar: i would question whether it is correct to tie those decisions together
21:31:29 <hober> q+
21:32:03 <jernoble> chcunningham: the googlers here are not the same people who worked on that intent-to-ship
21:32:23 <jernoble> chcunningham: lets not stall or increase the scope of this conversation by pulling in that intent-to-ship into this WG
21:32:42 <jernoble> jean-ivar: that makes sense, and that's why i wanted to bring this up; others in the WG might not have been aware of it
21:32:55 <jernoble> s/jean-ivar/jan-ivar/
21:33:38 <jernoble> chcunningham: the two APIs are tied together in origin trials, but they're separate Apis and implementations in our process
21:34:38 <jernoble> cpn: in terms of the WG, Insertable Streams is not a deliverable of this WG; it doesn't have a home or an official status
21:34:55 <cpn> q?
21:35:03 <tidoust> ack hober
21:35:38 <jernoble> hober: my understanding is the choice before the group is to either expose on window&worker, or to start by exposing on worker and expose window later, correct?
21:36:23 <jernoble> hober: from an architectural standpoint, it's always easier to add features rather than remove them; the more cautious approach would be to expose on workers first
21:36:45 <jernoble> ... we have time to learn from that experience and decide how best to expose it on window
21:37:08 <jernoble> ... pragmatically, it would be sensible to delay for now, not saying that's no forever
21:37:51 <jernoble> cpn: there is a question we put to the TAG w.r.t. design principles; if we go down the route for worker-only, is that unprecedented
21:38:13 <jernoble> ... it would be interesting to hear from the TAG about overall criteria about when APIs are exposed to worker vs. window.
21:38:34 <jernoble> hober: we don't offhand have a case where APIs are exposed in worker only, we do have the other way around
21:39:05 <jernoble> ... the fact that some of those APIs are exposed only on window, because we don't want things complicating or interfering with worker work
21:39:23 <jernoble> jan-ivar: one example is AudioWorklet, where it's not available on window
21:39:42 <jernoble> dale: can't find any APIs that are only exposed on Worker
21:40:24 <jernoble> chcunningham: on the Q about deferring, i understand hober's point; our position is that we're comfortable going forward because of the data & feedback make us comfortable doing so
21:40:50 <jernoble> chcunningham: clarification, speaking on behalf of Google
21:41:03 <jernoble> chcunningham: Google supports exposing this API on window now, without deferral
21:42:07 <jernoble> bernard: Q: WebRTC doesn't have great history of threading; is there experience about problems on the main thread.
21:42:18 <jernoble> ... is there data about other APIs having problems on the main thread
21:43:45 <jernoble> jan-ivar: web apis that duplicate what you can do with native APIs, yes, no work is done on the main thread; but we're allowing this API so that apps can do expensive operations about pre- and post-processing
21:44:24 <jernoble> jan-ivar: we're having the same discussion about insertable streams, about whether to expose to the window
21:46:40 <jernoble> chcunningham: the point of this being the first API only exposed to worker, is just to reply to hober's point about conservative default choices
21:48:32 <jernoble> chcunningham: process Q: how will the chairs decide the results of the CfC
21:49:17 <jernoble> cpn: if the chairs decide that we don't have consensus, the chairs have options available: we could decide on a vote, we could move ahead and receive FOs which will be escalated to the director
21:49:29 <jernoble> cpn: the AB and the TAG would convene
21:49:52 <jernoble> hober: there's an open question about the future without FOs going to the director to decide, but realistically the W3C team will handle FOs
21:50:10 <jernoble> hober: the experiment we had to send escalations to the AB and the TAG was just that, an experiment
21:50:25 <jernoble> hober: there's no particular reason to believe that the experiment would continue
21:51:13 <jernoble> hober: having been on the other side, as someone who has FO'd, it takes a lot of time for a lot of very busy people. the Q is whether this rises to a FO issue
21:52:32 <jernoble> jan-ivar: is it the case that shipping is blocked on resolving whether to expose on window?
21:53:06 <jernoble> chcunningham: the debating part is the concern; Chrome thinks there's nothing new to be found in debating
21:53:08 <cpn> q?
21:54:49 <jernoble> cpn: my assessment is that the WG does not have consensus
21:55:29 <jernoble> bernard: among the developers i've talked to, those developers have consensus that it should be exposed on worker, largely because worker support has been bad
21:55:51 <jernoble> ... they feel that getting everything they need to make things work on workers will take a long time
21:56:47 <jernoble> ... they feel blocked by other W3C-related worker APIs; e.g.W3C transport on workers; their existing work was based on MSE, which was not available on workers; WebNN worker support
21:57:05 <jernoble> ... MediaStream track support in workers
21:59:04 <jernoble> cpn: for certain classes of devices, just using workers is a problem
21:59:38 <jernoble> ... if we go down the route to deferral, what is the criteria for re-evaluating that decision
22:00:42 <jernoble> hober: w.r.t. chcunningham's point of circle of debate, what if this issue was just tabled entirely for a certain amount of time?
22:00:56 <jernoble> ... that would give time for implementation and adoption experience
22:01:22 <jernoble> chcunningham: i think that ignores my point of having high confidence about moving forward
22:04:41 <jernoble> cpn: my feeling is to side with the developers in the origin trial; but if we decided on deferral we would need clear mechanisms for changing our minds
22:05:11 <jernoble> chcunningham: would anyone object to a vote on this issue?
22:05:16 <jernoble> jan-ivar: i would object
22:05:17 <wolenetz> q+ msev2
22:07:15 <tidoust> q- msev2
22:11:06 <cpn> rrsagent, draft minutes
22:11:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/13-mediawg-minutes.html cpn
22:11:13 <cpn> rrsagent, make log public