W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > March 2012

Re: AW: review the API for Media Resources 1.0 before PR

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:59:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4F707633.4030900@w3.org>
To: tmichel@w3.org
CC: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>

Werner,

And here is a diff file of the changes.

https://cvs.w3.org/Team/WWW/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/API10/PR/Overview.html.diff?f=h&r1=text&tr1=1.8&r2=text&tr2=1.28


Note that I have used a new normative reference [MEDIA-ONTOLOGY] for all 
the reference to the Media Ontology spec, throughout the document.

Thierry

Le 26/03/2012 15:51, Thierry MICHEL a écrit :
>
> Werner,
>
> thank you very much for your review and suggestions.
>
> I have update the document accordingly.
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/API10/PR/
>
> see exact cgaznges bellow.
>
>
> Le 26/03/2012 13:40, Bailer, Werner a écrit :
>> Hi Thierry, all,
>>
>> please find attached a PDF of the API document with my comments and
>> corrections.
>
> All your updates mentionned in the pdf file are in the spec at
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/API10/PR/
>
> except 2 requets;
>
> section 4.1.1 Methods:
>
> Note1:" it seems methods and attributes are ordered alphabetically - is
> that done by the stylesheet, and if so, any chance to turn it off?
> now it is a bit confusing that methods and attributes are in different
> order in the interface code and in the examples than in this section"
>
> I have edited the document manually (the output of the source, not using
> the script, for this PR version).
> If we need to sort differently the methods and attributes are currently
> ordered alphabetically, this should be done manually.
>
>
>
>
> Note2: "mode is optional: what happens if omitted, and the
> implementation supports both modes?"
>
> Not sure what statement I should add here.
>
>
>
>>
>> When preparing the JSON examples, we had a discussion on the list (see
>> thread starting with [1]). Most of the issues discussed have been
>> resolved, but two points are still open IMO (but probably that need
>> not be done before moving the API document to PR):
>>
>> - There was some unclarity about the use of status codes in the JSON
>> examples, and we also made some smaller changes of the codes in autum,
>> so it would be useful to review them again (and correct, if necessary).
>>
>> - There are the issues about fragments without identifiers in the
>> source, and resources/fragments with multiple identifiers (see [2]).
>> This is something to go into implementation notes/best practices,
>> either as informative section/annex of the API document or as a
>> separate note.
>>
>
>
> If this is simple enough to be resolved let say during the next telecon,
> I would be happy to put these in the PR document.
>
> Thierry.
>
>> Best regards,
>> Werner
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Dec/0022.html
>>
>> [2]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2011Dec/0024.html
>>
>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: Thierry MICHEL [mailto:tmichel@w3.org]
>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. März 2012 16:11
>>> An: public-media-annotation@w3.org
>>> Betreff: review the API for Media Resources 1.0 before PR
>>>
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> This is the last chance to review the API for Media Resources 1.0
>>> Please review it deeply.
>>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/API10/PR/
>>>
>>> Next tuesday, during our regular telecon the MAWG will decide to move it
>>> to Proposed Rec.
>>> Therefore attendance to the MAWG telecon is required.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Thierry.
>
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 13:59:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 26 March 2012 13:59:38 GMT