W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > January 2011

RE: Recapitulation of ma:format vs. ma:compression.

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:50:06 +0100
To: 'Joakim Söderberg' <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, "'Bailer, Werner'" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010DADAA5143@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
YES, JP

-----Original Message-----
From: Joakim Söderberg [mailto:joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com] 
Sent: lundi, 17. janvier 2011 09:49
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre; 'Bailer, Werner'
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE: Recapitulation of ma:format vs. ma:compression.

I'm sorry, I forgot that there was a vote about the name for "ma:compression" in April 2010. So to clarify, the present suggestion is:
format 
compression

We should add "recommend practice of RFC4281 whenever possible" to description text for "format", and explain that ma:compression, can be used to describe the encoding of a track rather than a complete file.

Ok?

/Joakim

-----Original Message-----
From: Evain, Jean-Pierre [mailto:evain@ebu.ch] 
Sent: den 17 januari 2011 09:13
To: 'Bailer, Werner'; Joakim Söderberg
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE: Recapitulation of ma:format vs. ma:compression.

Dear all,

I second the position of Werner to keep ma:compression for the same reasons.

Additionally, I have a problem with the methodology used. This is now a very old subject. Several changes to the ontology have been discussed two telcos ago (and I'll come back in another mail about things agreed and not implemented yet).  The use of MIME types had been discussed before the time of this call and the issue wasn't raised. And here it comes again.

The way the issue is (re-re-re-) presented is also weird. Why say we are back to where we started? There was a proposal. There was motivated disagreement. Hence, no consensus, no change.

End of the story.

Regards,

Jean-Pierre

-----Original Message-----
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bailer, Werner
Sent: lundi, 17. janvier 2011 08:49
To: Joakim Söderberg
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE: Recapitulation of ma:format vs. ma:compression.

Dear Joakim, all,

Thanks for the summary, I'd like to add two points here:
- We should recommend the use of RFC4281 whenever possible, but we cannot rely that they exist for a particular format.
- There is a second reason to keep ma:compression (or codec), which is to describe the encoding of a track rather than a complete file.

Best regards,
Werner

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joakim Söderberg
> Sent: Montag, 17. Jänner 2011 08:36
> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Recapitulation of ma:format vs. ma:compression.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Some advice on the mailing list suggested that the rfc4281 mime-type
> extensions should be in ma:format, and to delete ma:compression or use
> it for the case there are no codec parameters, and rename it to
> "ma:codecs".
> 
> However, the group consensus was that it's not a way forward, since
> extended mime-types are not widely in use. So I would say we are back
> where we started; with ma:format and ma:compression. Unless we want to
> rename ma:compression to ma:codec?
> 
> /Joakim
Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 08:50:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 January 2011 08:51:15 GMT