W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > April 2010

Re: plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:19:28 -0500
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org, public-ietf-w3c <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, ietf-types@alvestrand.no
Message-ID: <1271945968.4466.10339.camel@pav.lan>
+cc ietf-types@alvestrand.no ;
thread begins at

On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 09:32 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/#standardisation-terminology
> > "The Media Fragment WG has no authority to update registries of all
> > targeted media types. ... We recommend media type owners to harmonize
> > their existing schemes with the ones proposed in this document and
> > update or add the fragment semantics specification to their media type
> > registration."
> >
> > Is there a plan to get that recommendation implemented?
> I can offer to do an update of the Ogg RFC
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5334.txt with these fragment
> specifications.
> Though, to be honest, it will be easier to just get implementations
> and then, if they catch on, update the RFC.

Well, that's a plan of sorts... but it's important to coordinate
that with the IETF. It's not polite for W3C to unilaterally
encourage implementations to deploy certain designs that will
constrain updates to IETF RFCs.

I wonder who to coordinate with from the IETF side...
The http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-types
page says it's owned/run by Harald Alvestrand and Mark Baker (distobj).
Does this play make sense to you?

Otherwise, Mark N., would you suggest anybody in particular
to coordinate with?

> The reason that we can do implementations without much issues is that
> virtually no other implementations of fragment schemes on media
> resources exist. Even where schemes were developed such as at YouTube,
> these schemes were not done on the media resource, but on the Web page
> URLs. Also see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#ExistingSchemes
> for a more indepth analysis of the state of affairs. The exisiting
> MPEG scheme has not been implemented anywhere FAIK and would not clash
> since it always starts with mp().
> Cheers,
> Silvia.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 14:19:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:34 UTC