- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:42:35 +1000
- To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi all, I have taken the liberty to make some changes to our specifications and requirements documents. Requirements doc: * I have made the "aspect ratio" an out-of-scope use case and added an explanation why (I think this closes ACTION-109 actually) * I have edited the introduction section to explain what this is a requirements document for and removed everything that relates to the specification in the introduction * I have added a bib reference to the specification document Specification doc: * I have removed the "side conditions" section (that would close ACTION-113) * I have edited the introduction section and added a reference to the requirements document * I have added a bib reference to the requirements document Further I went through some of the open issues and actions and I would suggest to add something to Action 71, http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/71 : Michael to "Investigate whether he could have an implementation in Javascript that does the client-side media fragments parsing" -> I think the demo that I made at http://www.annodex.net/~silvia/itext/mediafrag.html answers that generally -> so we need to move this to "Michael to create a javascript library and include in e.g. jquery" OK, now onto media fragments <-> query... This was just preparatory work. :-) Cheers, Silvia. 2009/9/23 Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>: > I thought we were going to mandate the <unit> part of the range headers? > > Regards, > Silvia. > > 2009/9/23 Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>: >> Dear all, >> >> [Apologies for my sudden drop, fire trials in the building have unexpectedly >> close power supply and disconnect us from the network, impacting internet >> connexion and phone (because of vo-ip) :-(] >> >> The full minutes are available for review at >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html (and in text format >> below). >> >> I think the main resolution taken concern the syntax for Range and >> Content-Range headers. I have slightly updated the syntax as: >> >> Range: <dimension> [':' <unit>] '=' <start-pos> - <end-pos> >> >> Content-Range: <dimension> [':' <unit>] ' ' <real-start-pos> '-' >> <real-end-pos> '/' (<instance-length> / "*" ) >> >> also at >> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/WG_Resolutions#Media_Fragment_Headers >> >> Note that I follow the version 07 of the HTTBis draft that says that the >> instance-length could also be '*' in the Content-Range response, meaning: >> >> The header SHOULD indicate the total length of the full entity-body, >> unless this length is unknown or difficult to determine. The >> asterisk "*" character means that the instance-length is unknown at >> the time when the response was generated. >> >> Feel free to shout if you have any objections. >> >> I also understand from the minutes that we still need to discuss how will >> handle media fragments for the 'track' and 'name' dimensions, and in >> particular which headers should we use. I understand also that it is less of >> priority as we should first get quickly the draft out for the two other >> numerical dimensions. I will write this topic in the forthcoming agendas of >> our telecon. >> Cheers. >> >> Erik & Raphaël >> >> ------ >> [1]W3C >> [1] http://www.w3.org/ >> - DRAFT - >> Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference >> 23 Sep 2009 >> [2]Agenda >> [2] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0129.html >> See also: [3]IRC log >> [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-irc >> Attendees >> Present >> Conrad, Jack, Michael, Silvia, Raphael, Thierry, Yves, Erik >> Regrets >> Chair >> Erik, Raphael >> Scribe >> jackjansen >> Contents >> >> * [4]Topics >> 1. [5]1 admin >> 2. [6]2 UC & requirements >> 3. [7]3 specification >> 4. [8]4, test cases >> 5. [9]5 issues >> * [10]Summary of Action Items >> _________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> <trackbot> Date: 23 September 2009 >> >> <raphael> Scribe: jackjansen >> >> <raphael> Scrinenick: jackjansen >> >> <raphael> scribenick: jackjansen >> >> 1 admin >> >> <raphael> Minutes telecon: >> [11]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html >> >> [11] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html >> >> <raphael> Minutes F2F: >> [12]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-minutes.html and >> [13]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/18-mediafrag-minutes.html >> >> [12] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-minutes.html >> [13] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/18-mediafrag-minutes.html >> >> <mhausenblas> +1 >> >> <raphael> +1 >> >> Raphael: minutes approved >> >> <silvia> +1 >> >> Thierry: action-111 is ongoing >> >> 2 UC & requirements >> >> Raphael: 105 and 106 are ongoing, will try to do this afternoon >> >> <raphael> ACTION-95? >> >> <trackbot> ACTION-95 -- Michael Hausenblas to review ALL UC with a >> mobile hat on and check whether these sufficiently cover the mobile >> usage -- due 2009-09-02 -- OPEN >> >> <trackbot> >> [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/95 >> >> [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/95 >> >> Michael: on 95 there seem to be no issues with mobile >> >> RESOLUTION: 95, no special issues for mobile >> >> <raphael> Side Conditions are in 2 documents: >> [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-req >> s/#side-conditions >> >> [15] >> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#side-conditions >> >> <raphael> which document should it be? >> >> <raphael> close ACTION-95 >> >> <trackbot> ACTION-95 Review ALL UC with a mobile hat on and check >> whether these sufficiently cover the mobile usage closed >> >> <raphael> Jack: I agree it should be in one document, no preference >> >> Raphael: tends to think its requirement doc >> >> <mhausenblas> +1 >> >> <scribe> ACTION: Raphael to move section to requirements doc only >> [recorded in >> [16]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01] >> >> <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Raphael >> >> <raphael> Silvia: about your suggestion of removing the side >> conditions section in one of the two document >> >> <scribe> ACTION: troncy to move section to requirements doc only >> [recorded in >> [17]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02] >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-113 - Move section to requirements doc >> only [on Raphaël Troncy - due 2009-09-30]. >> >> <raphael> ... we will remove it from the spec and keep it in the >> requirements doc >> >> <silvia> +1 >> >> 3 specification >> >> <raphael> ACTION-109? >> >> <trackbot> ACTION-109 -- Erik Mannens to and Davy to write a >> paragraph in the documents to explain why we don't include this >> feature in the spec (rationale) based on the group analysis (impact >> both req and spec documents) -- due 2009-09-24 -- OPEN >> >> <trackbot> >> [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/109 >> >> [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/109 >> >> <raphael> Yes, Silvia, this is Erik action we are talking about >> >> Erik: 109 will be done this week >> >> <raphael> ACTION-110? >> >> <trackbot> ACTION-110 -- Silvia Pfeiffer to silvia to Draft a >> summary starting from her blog post and the 17/09/2009 IRC minutes >> in the document (role of ? and #) -- due 2009-09-24 -- OPEN >> >> <trackbot> >> [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/110 >> >> [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/110 >> >> <silvia> 110 will be done this week >> >> <raphael> ... what's the status of this action? >> >> <silvia> not done yet >> >> Silvia: 110 also this week >> >> Raphael: let's talk about range syntax >> >> <raphael> >> [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Se >> p/0133.html >> >> [20] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0133.html >> >> <silvia> I just a few minutes ago sent an update on that discussion >> >> <silvia> >> [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Se >> p/0135.html >> >> [21] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0135.html >> >> <silvia> does anyone have the specification that Yves pointed out >> will update the RFC to satisfy the need for other range types? >> >> <conrad> if we are going to make a spec for time range units, i >> agree with silvia's proposal that both Range request header and >> Content-Range response header should use "time:npt" etc. >> >> <conrad> if we start re-using parsers then we need to have the same >> syntax constraints in both >> >> <conrad> eg. commas have a special meaning in headers >> >> Jack: prefres to stay close to existing http syntax >> >> <silvia> we are not making any differences to existing http syntax >> >> Conrad: also syntax in different http headers >> >> Jack: agrees >> >> <silvia> the RFC has been reviewed: >> [22]http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/85 >> >> [22] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/85 >> >> <silvia> one change was "make name of header value production for >> "Range" consistent with other headers" >> >> Raphael: proposed resolution: adopt proposal from Silvia, with both >> range and content-range >> ... using dimension:unit >> >> <raphael> Range: <dimension>[':' <unit>] '=' <start time> - <end >> time> >> >> conrad: units not optional >> >> <Yves> +1 to no optional unit >> >> +1 >> >> <raphael> Range: <dimension> ':' <unit> '=' <start time> - <end >> time> >> >> <raphael> same for Content-Range >> >> <silvia> why no optional unit? >> >> <conrad> if any of the time are allowed to have frame offsets, the >> unit must be there >> >> Raphael: revised proposal: units not optional, same for >> content-range >> >> <raphael> +1 for this proposal >> >> <raphael> silvia, if the offset is at the frame precision, then unit >> is mandatory >> >> <Yves> silvia, because machines are not humans >> >> beep beep >> >> <raphael> Silvia, no objection ? >> >> <silvia> no, I am not too worried about optional/non-optional unit >> in Range >> >> <silvia> +1 >> >> <silvia> just curious about reasoning :) >> >> <mhausenblas> +1 >> >> RESOLUTION: range and unit are non-optional in content-range and >> range headers >> >> <silvia> btw: the draft RFC update is here >> [23]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-07#page-8 >> >> [23] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-07#page-8 >> >> Raphael: next, should we use range for addressing tracks? >> >> <raphael> >> [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Server-parsed_Fra >> gments >> >> [24] >> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Server-parsed_Fragments >> >> <conrad> silvia: what is your response about use of range for track? >> >> Raphael: Conrad wants new header, Silvia wants to reuse range >> >> Yves: range header is mainly numeric >> >> <silvia> I wonder why we need a different header for that - let me >> read up on the email thread >> >> Yves: we will wait for raphael to return >> >> <silvia> so, Yves, do you agree about creating a new "Fragment:" >> header for tracks? >> >> <conrad> you can't take an interval of track names, or describe the >> instance-length for Content-Range >> >> We will continue. >> >> <silvia> you could if the tracks were ordered >> >> <silvia> then the "instance-length" could be the number of tracks >> >> Yves: if we have it in range, would we need resolver to map track >> names to byte ranges? >> >> <silvia> we need such a resolver for time, too >> >> <conrad> silvia: how do you request "t=20/20&track=audio" as a Range >> header, and how do you make the Content-Range response? >> >> Yves: anyone has any response to my question? >> >> <silvia> multiple Range headers >> >> Jack: no opinion >> >> <silvia> multiple Content-Range response headers >> >> <Yves> multiple content ranges are allowed >> >> Yves: there is a similarity to what we said about aspect ratio >> >> <Yves> is track as a #fragment really required? >> >> <silvia> can you explain the similarity that you see? >> >> <Yves> when a URI can be contructed with the relevantstarting/ending >> time >> >> Should we table this until next week, silvia? >> >> <Yves> having named tracks instead of numeric value adds unnecessary >> complexity that requires a resolver, or a way to enumerate all the >> tracks in order >> >> <silvia> I do believe the track and also the id issues aren't fully >> understood yet >> >> <silvia> I also believe that it is good to focus on solving the >> "time" specification and protocol procedure now, but the others can >> wait a bit >> >> <conrad> Yves, that relates to ISSUE-4 >> >> <silvia> we could indeed keep discussing this on the mailing list >> until we have the spec for "time" finalised >> >> Yves: table, discuss on mail or next week. >> >> 4, test cases >> >> <mhausenblas> >> [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCases >> >> [25] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCases >> >> Michael: on action 93, it doesn't seem to affect anything >> >> RESOLUTION: action-93, no test cases were affected >> >> <mhausenblas> close ACTION-93 >> >> <trackbot> ACTION-93 Revisit the TC and see which are effected by >> the temporal-optional-comma-decision closed >> >> Michael: remove test case 4, as aspect ratio is gone >> >> <Yves> +1 >> >> ACTION on Michael to remove it >> >> <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on >> >> ACTION Michael to remove test case 4 >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-114 - Remove test case 4 [on Michael >> Hausenblas - due 2009-09-30]. >> >> <mhausenblas> state semantics >> [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/mftc >> >> [26] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/mftc >> >> Michael: on to action 108 >> >> <mhausenblas> Michael: empty means that it is defined but yields >> empty representation >> >> Michael: looking at naming of test cases, empty versus undefined >> ... is inconsistent, will clean it up >> ... empty means - defined, but yields empty representation >> >> <mhausenblas> two main categories: defined or undefined >> >> Michael: undefined means - no range given >> >> <mhausenblas> empty is defined, but yields empty representation >> >> ACTION Michael to come up with categorization of test cases wrt >> empty, undefined, etc >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-115 - Come up with categorization of test >> cases wrt empty, undefined, etc [on Michael Hausenblas - due >> 2009-09-30]. >> >> 5 issues >> >> Jack: no idea on issue 6 >> >> Yves: table it until Raphael is back >> >> Tves: let's adjourn the meeting >> >> ok, thanks! >> >> Too many different syntaxes with rrsagent and zakim:-) >> >> <Yves> yeah we should unify those ;) >> >> <Yves> trackbot, end telcon >> >> Summary of Action Items >> >> [NEW] ACTION: Raphael to move section to requirements doc only >> [recorded in >> [27]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01] >> [NEW] ACTION: troncy to move section to requirements doc only >> [recorded in >> [28]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02] >> >> [End of minutes] >> >> -- >> Raphaël Troncy >> EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department >> 2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France. >> e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com >> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 >> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 >> Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/ >> >> >
Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 00:43:40 UTC