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

changes to use cases & requirements doc

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 18:35:42 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02830811072335jf521154p3ded3ce133fe9d16@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Media Fragment" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

Hi all,

I have just edited the section
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Use_Cases_%26_Requirements_Draft#Relevant_Protocols
on protocols in the use cases and requirements document and removed
some discussion around which protocols we are covering and moved it
into the original use cases and requirements document at
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Use_Cases_Discussion#Media_Delivery_UC.

May I suggest we leave all discussion and open issues out of the newer document?
Instead, we still have the older document where we threw together our
first thoughts to have discussions about open points etc.
This document should continue to be the document for discussions,
while the new document should only capture things that we have agreed
on.
Is this agreeable?

BTW: I have tried to capture only the things that we agreed on from
the F2F in the new use cases & requirements document, but I may have
made some assumptions. If you disagree and want to have a discussion
on some points, please bring them up on email (and possibly move them
to the older document).


Now concretely on the protocol issues:

I did indeed research the protocol case and found that almost all p2p
protocols are proprietary, and that bittorent in particular already
has an internal mechanism for receiving fragments of media files
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_%28protocol%29). p2p
protocols are mostly about receiving long files and playing them back
at a later time - so the need for addressing fragments doesn't seem to
be there.

As  for mms: it was deprecated by Microsoft in 2003 and is not even
supported in their latest software any longer.

These were the reasons that I thought neither mms nor the p2p
protocols were relevant to our work. However, feel free to disagree.
:)

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Saturday, 8 November 2008 07:36:19 GMT

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