[foms] W3C activities on HTTP adaptive streaming - Inform and ask opinion.

Francois Daoust fd at w3.org
Thu Dec 2 06:34:23 PST 2010

On 12/02/2010 03:05 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> Hi Francois,
> A third means of solution has been discussed in the FOMS group during
> recent months: namely the exposure of quality of service statistics to
> JavaScript through the video element by the browsers. This will allow
> anyone to implement their own adaptive streaming solution without
> restriction to a proprietary solution or restriction to the algorithm
> implemented in a browser for when to switch between streams. It will
> allow further innovation and seems currently the preferred first step.

True. I think this could be worked upon in parallel. Not having to ship a media player along with the media content as well as being able to define a true open standard for adaptive streaming would be preferable, IMO, but a JavaScript QoS API certainly goes in the right direction. If that's easier to get people involved and have it implemented, then be it!

> Also, you might have noticed initial notes at
> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Adaptive_Streaming working towards
> solutions.

Yes. I read that with interest, as well as your latest blog post on the topic:


> Cheers,
> Silvia.
> 2010/12/3 Francois Daoust<fd at w3.org>:
>> On 12/02/2010 11:07 AM, Raphaël Troncy wrote:
>>>> are you saying that the W3C is considering starting a WG for adaptive
>>>> HTTP streaming?
>>> This has indeed been discussed during last TPAC (last month). I'm cc-ing
>>> François Daoust, staff contact in W3C, that might lead this activity.
>> "Starting a WG for adaptive HTTP streaming" is too positive a statement at
>> this point. We make the same analysis as others, in other words: it is
>> important for the success of video on the Web (through the<video>  tag),
>> there are different proprietary solutions out there, different
>> standardization organizations that also work on the topic, but no
>> royalty-free solution in sight.
>> HTTP adaptive streaming can be addressed at the application level through
>> the definition of a manifest file format, or at the network level through
>> improvements to HTTP. W3C would welcome the work on a manifest file format
>> and its associated processing model, provided there is enough support from
>> its members involved in the field. People are, I think, looking for
>> convergence towards a common open solution much more than for the creation
>> of yet another standard, which is fine.
>> This got discussed a bit at TPAC, and keeps coming up in discussions. We put
>> our members in touch when they show interest in HTTP adaptive streaming. As
>> of today, there is no concrete proposal within W3C to start standardization
>> work, or public threads on the topic I could point you at.
>> I encourage people to bring this topic to the upcoming Web and TV workshop
>> in Berlin in February:
>>   http://www.w3.org/2010/11/web-and-tv/
>> (the topic is of particular relevance for TVs because of constraints such
>> devices have in terms of the number of technologies they can integrate).
>> This could also be discussed within the upcoming Web and TV Interest Group
>> (for clarity, note an "Interest Group" cannot develop rec-track
>> specifications), once created. Mailing-list is public-web-and-tv at w3.org,
>> archived at:
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/
>>>> If that is the case, I would very much think that the
>>>> discussion and conclusions that we have come up with here would be
>>>> well placed as input into that WG. I believe Jeroen, who has very much
>>>> taken the lead in pulling all the information together here, may even
>>>> have some very good draft proposals as starting points.
>>> +1!
>> If something gets started, the possibility to use existing works as starting
>> point would be extremely useful, indeed. Raphael had pointed me to the FOMS
>> workshop where this got discussed.
>> Francois.

More information about the foms mailing list