08:59:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #mediafrag
08:59:15 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-irc
08:59:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
08:59:17 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #mediafrag
08:59:19 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be IA_MFWG
08:59:20 <trackbot> Meeting: Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
08:59:20 <trackbot> Date: 15 June 2011
08:59:21 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see IA_MFWG()5:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
08:59:22 <jackjansen> jackjansen has joined #mediafrag
08:59:36 <raphael> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2011Jun/0010.html
08:59:41 <raphael> Chair: Raphael, Erik
08:59:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
08:59:51 <jackjansen> zakim, code?
08:59:51 <Zakim> the conference code is 3724 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), jackjansen
09:00:19 <Zakim> IA_MFWG()5:00AM has now started
09:00:28 <Zakim> + +33.4.93.00.aaaa
09:00:42 <Zakim> + +31.20.592.aabb
09:00:53 <jackjansen> zakim, aabb is me
09:00:53 <Zakim> +jackjansen; got it
09:01:21 <doublec> I get 'dispatch code is not valid'
09:01:28 <doublec> when trying to enter the conference code
09:01:52 <doublec> yes
09:02:18 <Zakim> + +6421209aacc
09:02:38 <silvia> hmm… I am still at work and about to go home… am I needed in the meeting?
09:03:35 <davy> davy has joined #mediafrag
09:03:58 <raphael> Chris announcing some nightlies to see part of media fragments in action :-)
09:04:00 <Zakim> + +329331aadd
09:04:50 <Zakim> +Yves
09:04:54 <raphael> zakim, aadd is Davy
09:04:54 <Zakim> +Davy; got it
09:05:22 <raphael> Present: Yves, Jack, Davy, Chris, Silvia, Raphael, Erik
09:05:44 <doublec> Zakim, mute me
09:05:44 <Zakim> doublec should now be muted
09:05:50 <erik> erik has joined #mediafrag
09:05:51 <raphael> Topic: 1. ADMIN
09:05:57 <raphael> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the last week telecon:
09:06:02 <raphael> http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-mediafrag-minutes.html
09:06:07 <davy> +1
09:06:13 <erik> +1
09:06:15 <raphael> +1
09:06:19 <jackjansen> +1
09:06:21 <raphael> minutes accepted
09:06:21 <doublec> +1
09:06:33 <raphael> Topic: 2. SPEC MAINTENANCE
09:07:10 <raphael> ACTION-218?
09:07:10 <trackbot> ACTION-218 -- Jack Jansen to carrefully review the changes made by Davy that will most likely be all over the palce -- due 2011-04-20 -- OPEN
09:07:10 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/218
09:08:06 <raphael> Jack: I'd like that people go through this list and address these comments
09:08:29 <Zakim> + +61.2.937.4.aaee
09:08:35 <silvia> zakim, aaee is me
09:08:35 <Zakim> +silvia; got it
09:09:51 <silvia> zakim, mute me
09:09:51 <Zakim> silvia should now be muted
09:11:21 <raphael> Jack: going through my comments, the first one is actually about section 6.1.1
09:11:31 <raphael> ... it is indeed a typo, e should be > 0
09:11:45 <raphael> ... should we allow empty images or empty video files ?
09:12:02 <raphael> Davy: no, no empty images, so we are right to write w>0 and h>0
09:12:22 <raphael> ... for consistency, we do the same for temporal, to e>0 (strictly greater)
09:13:46 <raphael> Jack: harmonize the text, between play from x to y OR play from x until y ... and also specifiy if the last frame should or should not be played
09:14:29 <raphael> ... this is an open interval so the last frame shouldn't be played
09:14:40 <raphael> Raphael: we should even have a test case that check this
09:15:00 <raphael> Jack: this is iimportant if we start combining media fragments
09:15:29 <raphael> s/iimportant/important
09:16:07 <raphael> Jack: we use width as opposed to right so it is clear which pixels are actually displayed
09:16:38 <raphael> ... this is clear, we can ignore this point
09:17:20 <raphael> Jack: #t=a, is illegal
09:17:28 <raphael> Davy: yes per the ABNF and per the test case
09:18:12 <raphael> Raphael: we should put it in the section 6.2.2 as a typical example of error case
09:21:10 <davy> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases#TC0018-UA
09:21:17 <raphael> Jack: problem with SMPTE time code adressing: are we always guaranteed to have frame accuracy
09:23:14 <foolip> I don't think the spec is anywhere near CR, it has no browser implementations yet. (I also don't know why the spec status is important.)
09:23:31 <foolip> I have no opinion on the name, id is fine by me.
09:23:44 <raphael> Philip, CR does not mean implementations ... PR mean implementations
09:23:58 <Yves> foolip, CR is a call for implementations, so it's normal not to have implementation at that stage (and the end result might be going back to LC again)
09:24:21 <foolip> OK, no opinion on spec status
09:25:06 <Yves> in any case, we know that most implementers are aware of the status of the edcopy :)
09:25:52 <raphael> Jack: perhaps we could let it explicitly as "implementation to be defined"
09:26:14 <raphael> ... if you do spmte addressing on smpte encoded media has a well defined behavior
09:26:45 <raphael> ... but if you do smpte addressing on non smpte-encoded media, then it is explicly undefined and we wait for implementation experience
09:27:06 <doublec> We have no plans to implement smpte timecods
09:27:08 <silvia> zakim, unmute me
09:27:08 <Zakim> silvia should no longer be muted
09:27:15 <raphael> Raphael: I think foolip does not plan to implement smpte addressing, correct foolip ?
09:27:25 <foolip> raphael, correct
09:27:34 <raphael> Jack: that is fine, this not for browsers, this is more for editing programs
09:28:20 <raphael> Silvia: gstreamer has a plan to implement media fragments with smpte time codes addressing for live streaming!
09:28:28 <silvia> flumotion
09:28:38 <raphael> Davy: WebTV IG has also interest in frame accuracy
09:28:52 <Yves> but does editing programs needs identifying such timepoints using URIs ?
09:29:10 <silvia> Thomas van der Stichele from Fluendo
09:29:26 <raphael> ... we should keep an eye on this group
09:29:48 <raphael> Raphael: I will check if Thomas is subscribed to this mailing list
09:30:07 <Yves> ok, thanks Jack, the annotations is indeed a use case
09:30:21 <raphael> Jack: the annotation use case is important, not only for playback, in an editing program that would use a URI to identify a frame
09:30:30 <silvia> zakim, mute me
09:30:30 <Zakim> silvia should now be muted
09:31:33 <raphael> Davy: no we don't have test cases yet for a<s and b<s and various combinations (because smpte timecodes don't have to be zero-based)
09:31:55 <raphael> ... we removed them for npt since these resources cannot start with 0, but we should add them back for smpte
09:32:28 <raphael> Jack: undefined for non contiguous smpte timecodes
09:32:47 <raphael> ... we need much more implementation experience
09:33:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
09:34:21 <raphael> Raphael: I'm in favor of saying explicitly it is *undefined*
09:34:26 <raphael> +1 from Jack and Davy
09:34:30 <silvia> +1
09:35:16 <silvia> zakim, unmute me
09:35:16 <Zakim> silvia should no longer be muted
09:35:31 <raphael> Raphael: going through the problem of track names discovery
09:35:45 <raphael> ... and errors on the track dimension
09:36:13 <raphael> Jack: what's happen with #track=foo&t=10,40 ?
09:36:27 <raphael> ... and track foo starts at t=25
09:36:40 <raphael> ... an implementation will play this track from 25 to 40 ?
09:37:19 <raphael> ... or play all the tracks from 10 to 25 and start to play from 25 to 40 the track foo ?
09:37:49 <raphael> Silvia: no, you just select the track, and return the sub part you have
09:39:06 <raphael> Silvia: I wouldn't write anything about this, this is a general problem
09:39:22 <raphael> ... this is a corner case
09:39:28 <raphael> ... again an implementation quality issue
09:39:45 <raphael> Jack: again, then I would be in favor of saying explicitly undefined
09:40:08 <raphael> ... if a track does not exist for the whole duration of the media, then what is happened is undefined
09:40:16 <raphael> ... a fothcoming WG could fix it
09:40:27 <raphael> s/fothcoming/forthcoming
09:40:54 <raphael> Jack: 6.3.5: we should explicitly state what happens if you apply a chapter MF to a media format that doesn't support chaptering?
09:41:08 <raphael> Davy: we have a test case for that
09:41:25 <Yves> yes, same defaulting behaviour as 'not found'
09:41:47 <raphael> ... same behavior that the media format supporting chapters but the chapter is not found
09:41:55 <raphael> close ACTION-217
09:41:55 <trackbot> ACTION-217 Edit the specification for precising what is the user experience when there is an invalid time range closed
09:42:57 <raphael> ACTIO: davy to edit the specification and in particular section 6 to reflect this entire discussion
09:43:02 <raphael> ACTION: davy to edit the specification and in particular section 6 to reflect this entire discussion
09:43:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-225 - Edit the specification and in particular section 6 to reflect this entire discussion [on Davy Van Deursen - due 2011-06-22].
09:43:25 <raphael> ACTION-221?
09:43:25 <trackbot> ACTION-221 -- Davy Van Deursen to fix the #t=10, in Section 4.2.1 which is invalid -- due 2011-06-15 -- OPEN
09:43:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/221
09:43:30 <raphael> close ACTION-221
09:43:30 <trackbot> ACTION-221 Fix the #t=10, in Section 4.2.1 which is invalid closed
09:43:36 <raphael> ACTION-222?
09:43:37 <trackbot> ACTION-222 -- Davy Van Deursen to adapt Section 5.2.3 so that the server can also send back the mapping in terms of byte ranges -- due 2011-06-15 -- OPEN
09:43:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/222
09:43:42 <raphael> close ACTION-222
09:43:42 <trackbot> ACTION-222 Adapt Section 5.2.3 so that the server can also send back the mapping in terms of byte ranges closed
09:44:12 <raphael> Topic: 3. Name of the 4th dimension
09:44:42 <jackjansen> I fully agree with Philip
09:45:49 <jackjansen> I disagree with "cue", the other ones are fine. "Cue" is a point, not an interval;
09:46:17 <raphael> Raphael: chapter might not be a good dimension name for possible confusion with the chapter track
09:46:18 <jackjansen> lol
09:46:25 <raphael> Silvia: segment?
09:46:37 <raphael> Raphael: id
09:46:40 <jackjansen> range? area? part?
09:47:03 <doublec> bookmark?
09:47:11 <jackjansen> -bookmark: it's a point
09:48:10 <doublec> what do the users suggest as an alternative?
09:48:11 <raphael> Silvia: I'm worried about the users, not the programmer
09:48:51 <raphael> Jack: initally we talked about id but said it replaced all dimensions
09:49:03 <raphael> ... now we restrict it to only time ranges
09:49:11 <raphael> ... and renamed it chapter
09:49:16 <Yves> shortcut?
09:49:39 <raphael> ... so if this is just a temporal range, chapter is good
09:49:59 <raphael> Silvia: chapter in the context of HTML5 is made for navigational purpose
09:50:46 <raphael> Jack: I'm in +-0
09:51:14 <raphael> Raphael: I like "id" because it is general and can extended in version 2
09:51:29 <davy> +1
09:51:34 <raphael> Erik: id I prefer
09:52:03 <foolip> perhaps our problem is that the best solution would be #nameofthingtoseekto, just like for HTML, but that unfortunately conflicts with something else we've made up :)
09:52:23 <silvia> #nameofthingtorestrictto
09:52:49 <raphael> Yves: id also conflicts with HTML
09:53:00 <foolip> silvia, so you no longer think users should be able to seek outside of the given fragment? ;)
09:53:05 <raphael> Jack: I disagree, id refers to a continuous section of a structured document
09:53:19 <raphael> ... and this is what we mean
09:53:27 <raphael> Yves: id means point
09:53:33 <doublec> fragment?
09:53:35 <raphael> Jack: no, a node that points to a subsection
09:53:46 <doublec> :)
09:54:06 <raphael> Raphael: propose to switch back to ID
09:54:22 <doublec> I just noticed everyone was calling it a fragment
09:54:41 <jackjansen> +0
09:54:46 <silvia> +.5
09:54:48 <doublec> +1 to id
09:54:52 <raphael> +1 for ID
09:54:56 <davy> +1 for id
09:54:57 <erik> +1 to id
09:55:04 <Yves> ~0 for id
09:55:27 <jackjansen> ~0? you mean 0xffffffff?
09:55:36 <Yves> yep!
09:55:44 <jackjansen> That's -1 to me....
09:55:57 <Yves> now use the right type, signed or unsigned...
09:56:08 <raphael> ACTION: davy to edit the spec again to switch back to "ID" for the 4th dimension
09:56:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-226 - Edit the spec again to switch back to "ID" for the 4th dimension [on Davy Van Deursen - due 2011-06-22].
09:56:31 <raphael> ACTION-224?
09:56:31 <trackbot> ACTION-224 -- Raphaël Troncy to send a reply to the 4 commenters -- due 2011-06-15 -- OPEN
09:56:31 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/224
09:56:49 <raphael> Topic: 4. CR transitioning
09:57:12 <raphael> Yves: diff versions need to be prepared
09:57:40 <raphael> ... just run htmldiff between the two LC and the CR version
09:57:47 <Yves> see http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=cr-tr
09:57:48 <raphael> Yves: the disposition of comments ?
09:58:39 <raphael> ... create an HTML page for this
09:59:09 <raphael> ... the comments between 1st LC, 2nd LC and CR
10:00:22 <raphael> Yves: I'm wondering if the whole section 5.2 should not be put aside in a different document with a note status ?
10:00:35 <raphael> Jack: do we want a note or an extension to be a spec later on
10:00:50 <raphael> Yves: a note would be better, it could be picked up by WG later on
10:01:52 <raphael> Yves: there are multiple ways of doing the same thing and I'm not sure it should be in the spec
10:03:02 <raphael> Jack: it is a painful decision to make because we have devoted a lot of time in it
10:03:12 <raphael> ... but I think I agree with you
10:03:35 <raphael> Silvia: I don't think this is fine. I believe implementers will need this part and consistently used
10:03:49 <silvia> it's about getting interoperable implementations
10:04:16 <raphael> Jack: look at the audience of this document: end users, web designers, people doing implementations
10:04:27 <raphael> Silvia: no, I disagree, we are targetting the URI spec readers
10:04:30 <Yves> rfc3986 is different from rfc2616
10:05:07 <raphael> Raphael: I agree with Silvia, and I don't think we should throw away this part
10:07:34 <raphael> Jack: this is clear that this part is nice for browser vendors, but it is not interesting for other readers
10:08:02 <raphael> Raphael: I don't think that our spec is that *long* that we should bother with part targetted at a different audience
10:08:10 <Zakim> -silvia
10:08:50 <Yves> I will take that to email
10:09:01 <silvia> a specification is there to create interoperable implementations
10:09:34 <silvia> it's not a communication tool for users - they can get their information from other websites that have created readable subparts from the specification
10:09:43 <erik> +1 to Raphael & Silvia ... if some are not interested in some parts, you just don't read it ... browser vendors are main players that will make this spec work (I think)
10:10:08 <Zakim> -raphael
10:10:10 <Zakim> -jackjansen
10:10:10 <Zakim> -Yves
10:10:12 <Zakim> -doublec
10:10:31 <raphael> Rapahel: I will prepare the diff files and the disposition of comments
10:10:56 <raphael> Yves: I will follow up this discussion by email + indicating the status of HTTP Bis and request for implementations from Marc Nottingham
10:11:04 <raphael> Topic: 5. AOB
10:11:07 <raphael> none
10:11:15 <raphael> meeting adjourned
10:11:53 <raphael> ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
10:11:55 <davy> davy has left #mediafrag
10:11:57 <Zakim> -Davy
10:11:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
10:11:58 <Zakim> IA_MFWG()5:00AM has ended
10:11:59 <Zakim> Attendees were +33.4.93.00.aaaa, raphael, +31.20.592.aabb, jackjansen, +6421209aacc, doublec, +329331aadd, Yves, Davy, Erik, +61.2.937.4.aaee, silvia
10:12:29 <raphael> Present+ Philip (irc)
10:12:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
10:12:49 <raphael> Regrets: Thomas
10:12:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
10:14:48 <raphael> ACTION: double to announce a link to a nightly implementing part of the media fragment spec
10:14:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-227 - Announce a link to a nightly implementing part of the media fragment spec [on Chris Double - due 2011-06-22].
10:14:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html raphael
12:11:11 <raphael> zakim, bye
12:11:11 <Zakim> Zakim has left #mediafrag
12:11:15 <raphael> RRSAgent, bye
12:11:15 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-actions.rdf :
12:11:15 <RRSAgent> ACTION: davy to edit the specification and in particular section 6 to reflect this entire discussion [1]
12:11:15 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-irc#T09-43-02
12:11:15 <RRSAgent> ACTION: davy to edit the spec again to switch back to "ID" for the 4th dimension [2]
12:11:15 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-irc#T09-56-08
12:11:15 <RRSAgent> ACTION: double to announce a link to a nightly implementing part of the media fragment spec [3]
12:11:15 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-mediafrag-irc#T10-14-48