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

Re: Backwards compatibility and the use cases and requirements draft

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:34:16 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02830812161234s7845dbbdu5694a2cc0fed25@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Geoffrey Sneddon" <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
Cc: "Media Fragment" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

Hi Geoffrey!

Welcome!

Actually, there is no specification available yet, so I wonder what
draft you are referring to. :-)

Indeed, where the server does not support fragments, the fallback is
full media download.
Good to spell it out, even if it seems obvious to us.

As for the user agent - it should not have to think much about it,
since it's a URI, so it's just retrieving a resource.
Still, there may be some optimisations that we want to build into the UA.

Cheers,
Silvia.

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Geoffrey Sneddon
<foolistbar@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I spoke to one or two of you around TPAC (though I have only just got around
> to actually writing any email), but to (very) briefly summarize who I am,
> I'm someone who primarily has an interest in HTML/CSS (and therefore have
> little background in video).
>
> Should it not be a requirement that if either the UA or the server (or both)
> doesn't support media fragments the behaviour should not be completely ugly
> and things should degrade nicely (even if that does mean downloading the
> entire video)? I got the impression at TPAC that this was a goal, but this
> is not in the current draft as of writing.
>
>
> --
> Geoffrey Sneddon
> <http://gsnedders.com/>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 20:34:53 GMT

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