21328 2013-03-18 23:39:01 +0000 "coded frame" in the context of baseband essence. 2013-04-30 17:36:23 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG Media Source Extensions unspecified PC Windows NT RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 pal adrianba acolwell acolwell glenn mike public-html-media public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 84592 0 pal 2013-03-18 23:39:01 +0000 The specification refers to "coded frame", which implies the use of coding, i.e. bit rate reduction. The specification is (should be) applicable to baseband essence. Suggest using the term "editable unit" instead. 84617 1 acolwell 2013-03-19 14:53:33 +0000 I don't believe this adds clarity to the spec. Essentially all of the primary use cases for MSE use compressed or coded data so coded frame captures this fact. Another issue is that coded frames are immutable. Use of the word "editable" does not convey this fact, but implies exactly the opposite. If at a later date, it becomes common to use uncompressed data and the term coded frame actually causes real confusion about what to do, then I think we can revisit the term. For now I don't think it is worth the busy work to update everything for this uncommon case. 84620 2 pal 2013-03-19 14:58:35 +0000 > Another issue is that coded frames are immutable. I recommend 'essence frame' then. 84630 3 acolwell 2013-03-19 16:32:21 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > > Another issue is that coded frames are immutable. > > I recommend 'essence frame' then. Again. I don't think this makes things clearer. 86721 4 glenn 2013-04-24 20:59:29 +0000 I'm reopening this bug, which is related to the just filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21819. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the term "encoded" or "editable unit" is used, but "compressed" is the wrong term. 86735 5 acolwell 2013-04-24 21:44:54 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > I'm reopening this bug, which is related to the just filed > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21819. I don't have a strong > opinion about whether the term "encoded" or "editable unit" is used, but > "compressed" is the wrong term. I agree that 'compressed' is the wrong term, but I still maintain my position that "editable unit" and "essence frame" is not a better option then the current term. If "coded frame" is still objectionable, I could change this to "media frame", but I still think in most cases that the "frames" will be coded in some form and require "decoding" in some sense of the word. 86739 6 glenn 2013-04-24 21:56:54 +0000 (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > I'm reopening this bug, which is related to the just filed > > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21819. I don't have a strong > > opinion about whether the term "encoded" or "editable unit" is used, but > > "compressed" is the wrong term. > > I agree that 'compressed' is the wrong term, but I still maintain my > position that "editable unit" and "essence frame" is not a better option > then the current term. If "coded frame" is still objectionable, I could > change this to "media frame", but I still think in most cases that the > "frames" will be coded in some form and require "decoding" in some sense of > the word. I'm fine with the term "Coded Frame". Let's just drop "compressed" from the definition, which I think will satisfy myself and Pierre. 87017 7 acolwell 2013-04-30 17:36:23 +0000 Change committed. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/rev/ffb76048861e Dropped the word "compressed" from the "Coded Frame" definition as discussed on today's conference call.