W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Media Fragments spec and HTTP

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 16:44:49 -0400 (EDT)
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1105191623060.10085@wnl.j3.bet>
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> It's been pointed out to me that the W3C Media Fragments URI 1.0 
> specification is in Second Last Call, and contains some new HTTP-related 
> values, including:
>
> * a variety of new range specifiers:
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-media-frags-20110317/#processing-protocol-Server-mapped
>
> * new HTTP header "Content-Range-Mapping":
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-media-frags-20110317/#processing-protocol-Server-mapped
>
> * new HTTP headers "Accept-Range-Redirect" and "Range-Redirect":
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-media-frags-20110317/#processing-protocol-server-mapped-proxy
>
> I may have missed others; I've only had a quick look,and it's a big document.
>
> One thing that jumped out at me was examples like this:
>
>  Range: t:npt=10-20;include-setup
>
> ... even though "t:npt" is not identified as a range unit (only "t" is).
>
> Is anyone willing to have a look at this from an HTTP perspective? I 
> note Yves is listed as a contributor, but it would be good to have a bit 
> more cross-review.

The spec (which is still a draft) contains different "recipes" to try to 
avoid requesting a huge video when only a small seconds are needed. As it 
is quite likely that there won't be enough implementation of any of them, 
they should all disappear from the spec, but I will provide a review of 
those to this list (with context).

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2011 20:44:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:40 GMT