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

Re: Identifying vs Describing media URI fragments

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 21:19:39 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02830810060319n5bbf64f5ma2f3545a028999f6@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: "RaphaŽl Troncy" <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, "Media Fragment" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> the fragment was sent and accepted by Apache. Apache now does not
>> accept URI fragments any more. Therefore, if we want to use a URI
>> mechanism to gain access to media fragments (i.e. subparts of media
>> files), we have to use a different mechanism. That's why the
>> temporalURI spec uses queries ("?") instead of fragments.
>
> In that case you are creating new resources, and have an issue if you want
> to reconstruct the whole document.


That's why we have made it such a complicated process for the UA to
request cachable sections of the original resource - see
http://annodex.net/TR/draft-pfeiffer-temporal-fragments-03.html#anchor8
. To the user, that should not be visible, but there is a slightly
more informed protocol necessary to allow caching of video fragments
that use URI fragments. I should also add that we never actually
implemented that protocol, but got to it through intensive discussions
with Squid developers and thus in theory it should work. But it needs
some testing...

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Monday, 6 October 2008 10:20:15 GMT

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