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

Re: [mawg] Re: ACTION-177: API at client/server side (was: Call for Test Cases)

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:04:17 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02830911111304k500551di16b68415fc8c816a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Cc: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, Pierre-Antoine <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Felix Sasaki
<felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de> wrote:
>
>
> 2009/11/11 Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
>>
>> Hi Felix, Werner,
>>
>> I don't quite follow the discussion.
>>
>> Let's say we look at the browser case. It will typically use some kind
>> of media framework to implement <video> and <audio> element support.
>> These support multiple formats. Each format may have different
>> metadata, but the media framework will implement access functions for
>> this metadata.
>
> Ah, OK. That point "the media framework will implement access functions for
> this metadata" I was not sure about. There are some formats which we have in
> scope (e.g. XMP), but which provide no platform-unspecific media framework /
> access functions. How would you deal with these?
>

In a Web Browser and for the <video> and <audio> element, these are
not relevant.

In a media/metadata management system, you will likely have the data
in a DB already and your interface is mysql. Also, where the data is
in XML or other text format, writing an access function is really
trivial. It's the metadata that is inside digital binary files that
you need to be worried about.

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 21:05:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 November 2009 21:05:18 GMT