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: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:33:19 +1000
Message-ID: <p2h2c0e02831004221733l693caf0en8c9fdf9d32cec322@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org, public-ietf-w3c <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, ietf-types@alvestrand.no
Hi Dan,

Does the IETF have a mechanism to request mime type owners to update
their specs to integrate something like a fragment specification for
URIs? If so, that would be helpful.


On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> +cc ietf-types@alvestrand.no ;
> thread begins at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Apr/0039.html
> 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 Friday, 23 April 2010 00:34:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 April 2010 00:34:15 GMT