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

Re: Combining media fragments with other time-clipping methods

From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:23:39 +0100
Cc: "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>, "Media Fragment" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0556A731-8B25-4300-910B-5BA521EC7BD0@cwi.nl>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>

On  27-Nov-2008, at 13:22 , Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

> When we did the temporal URI spec, we found that the best way to look
> at temporal URIs is that they always specify a interval, and never
> just a offset point. The only sensible use case for a single offset is
> when one is trying to extract a keyframe at such an offset rather than
> a media fragment - this could be done with content negotiation, but
> may not be something we should consider. So, our assumption was that
> the time always specified semi-open intervals: [20s,inf[ for #t=20s,
> or [20s,40s[ for #t=20s-40s. I think this makes sense for us, too.

Yeah! Semi-open intervals rule!! :-)

BTW: I was thought to write those sem-open intervals either as "[20s,  
40s>" (at school) or "[20s, 40s)" (at university).
Is the "[20s,40s[" a notation I'm not aware of, or a typo?

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  
Received on Thursday, 27 November 2008 22:24:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:41 UTC