W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > December 2009

Re: AW: [mawg] reviewing ID3v2

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:19:19 +0100
Message-ID: <4B1CD6A7.1040205@cwi.nl>
To: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
CC: Pierre-Antoine <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, Joakim SŲderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
> One reasons for not including size were that it does not apply to
> fragments, while the other two properties do.

Why?

> I also believe that
> Dave was in favour of having bit rate instead of file size w.r.t.
> streaming media.

For streaming media, I understand it better.

> We can nonetheless decide to add file size, but looking at it more
> globally, there are many properties in many formats that might be
> useful in some cases but cannot be mapped to ma:* - that's inevitable
> when defining a small set of properties.

That is very true as a general remark.
I guess one way to decide is to see what would be the usage of the 
various ma properties. The question is therefore: is the fileSize a 
sufficiently important annotation property to be explicitly represented?

   RaphaŽl

-- 
RaphaŽl Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des CrÍtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 10:20:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:20:20 GMT