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

Re: Combining media fragments with other time-clipping methods

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:50:59 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02830811271550p56e469acl91e911b28a6e6090@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jack Jansen" <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
Cc: "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>, "Media Fragment" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl> wrote:
> 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?

Just the way I learnt them. But I also know [20s,40s). I've never seen
[20s,40s> though.

Received on Thursday, 27 November 2008 23:51:34 UTC

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