W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > December 2008

Re: Combining media fragments with other time-clipping methods

From: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:01:29 +0900
Message-ID: <dba6c0830812042201q5939b98cu9aa5eee9aeba7784@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: "Media Fragment" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

2008/12/1 Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>:
>
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>>> indeed interesting, but not directly related to fragments. But as the
>>> syntax
>>> would be quite similar (as using # makes perfect sense there), we need to
>>> accomodate that in our syntax.
>>
>> That begs the question: is an image extracted from a certain offset
>> point not a fragment? It is indeed a different mime type, but I'd
>> still call it a fragment.
>
> It can be a fragment, if there is a good reason for that. You can also (in
> the case of pictures extracted) have metadata in the picture pointing to the
> original video.
> Now what will be more useful in this case, define it as a full class URI, or
> as a fragment URI?

I'm trying to understand this question :-)

So, for example in a current implementation:

  http://www.annodex.net/cmmlwiki/OSSForum-Trailer.png?t=0:02:10

is an image representation of the first frame of the video subview:

  http://www.annodex.net/cmmlwiki/OSSForum-Trailer.axv?t=0:02:10

These are normal URLs; the first is used in <img>, the second in
<video>. Both work with wget, and their relationship is clear. though
application-specific. Here they have different use-cases. For a larger
archive it would also make sense for these to be implemented on
separate servers and thus appear as different resources, because they
require different processing.

Now to the above question:

As I understand it, the suggestion is to define a common URI
mechanism, something like:

  http://www.annodex.net/cmmlwiki/OSSForum-Trailer.axv?t=0:02:10#type=image/png

or

  http://www.annodex.net/cmmlwiki/OSSForum-Trailer.axv#t=0:02:10&type=image/png

and to specify how every user agent should translate these into URLs
without '#' (or a combination of URL + new request headers).

If that is the suggestion, I suppose the benefit is to get rid of
application-specific relationships and define a common syntax. Of
course this adds a layer of indirection so we'd need to discuss the
trade-offs.

Do I understand the question correctly?

Conrad.
Received on Friday, 5 December 2008 06:02:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:31 GMT