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

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

From: Bailer, Werner <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:05:39 +0200
To: "tmichel@w3.org" <tmichel@w3.org>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD9846F872C7874BB4E0FDF2A61EF09FEE76912885@RZJC1EX.jr1.local>
Hi Thierry,

thanks for your updates. Please find my answers to the open issues below.

> 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.

OK, I see. It would only be a small improvement, so it's probably not worth all the work of reordering.

> Note2: "mode is optional: what happens if omitted, and the
> implementation supports both modes?"
> 
> Not sure what statement I should add here.

I just discussed with Florian. We should state that in the case the mode argument is omitted, and the implementation supports both modes, the asynchronous mode will be used.

> > 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.

The point on JSON is probably assigning actions to distribute the work of reviewing.

For the second points, we have proposals in the discussion on the mailing list (see [2] below). If we can agree on them, it should be easy to draft some text from it.

Best regards,
Werner





> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Thierry MICHEL [mailto:tmichel@w3.org]
> Gesendet: Montag, 26. März 2012 15:51
> An: Bailer, Werner
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: review the API for Media Resources 1.0 before PR
> 
> 
> 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 15:06:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 26 March 2012 15:06:21 GMT