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

Re: Combining media fragments with other time-clipping methods

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:03:41 -0500 (EST)
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
cc: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0811280759440.2884@ubzre.j3.bet>

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, 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.

I always used [], [[, ]] and ][, never saw the other notations.

But back to the point, pointing to a position in a complete media file is 
indeed interesting, but not directly related to fragments. But as the 
syntax would be quite similar (as using # makes perfect sense there), we 
need to accomodate that in our syntax.


-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Friday, 28 November 2008 13:03:54 GMT

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