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

Review of use cases and requirements

From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:04:18 +0100
Message-Id: <EE01CDBE-A15D-47A9-BEAB-BC115DDCD09C@cwi.nl>
To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

Here's my review of http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Use_Cases_%26_Requirements_Draft 
, dated November 8.

Browsing media:
Scenario 1: I think a logical pagination here would make a more  
powerful example, so could "20 minutes" be replaced by something like  
topics?

Scenario 2: again, logical splitting may be more powerful. Daisy  
books, for example, allow jumping by chapter, section, paragraph,  
sentence.

Recompositing media fragments:
This section I have the most problems with. For all of these I would  
*not* use url fragments, but in stead use SMIL (also for scenario 1  
and 4: SMIL tiny was done specifically for playlists). There's little  
added value in using url fragments here: the UA will have to implement  
(part of) the work anyway, so I see little advantage in specifying
     < video src="http://example.com/myvideo.ogg#t=20-30"/>
over
     <video src="http://example.com/myvideo.ogg" clipBegin="20"  
clipEnd="30"/>
Same for spatial clipping.

As to the specific question in scenario 2: I don't know of any  
implementation of SMIL as a background image.

Technology requirements, Media Accessibility
Should we add a use case for a search engine robot here?




--
Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma  
Goldman
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 10:04:58 GMT

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