W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [comment] Use cases and requirements for Media Fragments: Chapters 3, 4, 5

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:32:30 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830904070632y3f0a46ddn84cc1337dd07f0b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi Raphael,

I have no monopoly on these chapters - these suggestions are things we
should all decide together.

I think your suggestions make sense and I'm more than happy to change
them (but not before this week's meeting) - unless somebody disagrees.

The only objection I have is with removing the numbering from sections
4 - if we do that, it will be impossible to easily refer to them
later. At minimum I would suggest using a numbered list.

As I was reading it today, I also had some further suggestions.

Re: the "Evaluation of Fitness" table - I agree, the table is a real
obstacle to readability. Maybe we could move it into an addendum,
since it is analysing implementation-specific points?

Also, I think section 4 (requirements) should probably go further up -
maybe section 5 first, then section 4, then section 3.

I'll make more suggestions as I go along reading.

Cheers,
Silvia.


2009/4/7 Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>:
> Dear Silvia,
>
> I'm reading the latest version of
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/ (xml file
> v1.27).
>
> I do have some comments on the chapters you have edited:
>  - Could we use something else than <eg> for the scenarios? The problem is
> that <eg> forces the text to appear on a single line and we have now to
> scroll horizontally the bar to get the whole scenario. Can you fix that?
>  - It seems to me that the first requirements from the scenarios are the
> four dimensions we are considering. Consequently, could we switch the
> sections 4 and 5, and first talk about the 4 dimensions, and then introduce
> these additional requirements.
>  - Do we really want sub-section headings for the current section 4? Or
> could we live with a more structured list? Again, I'm looking for formatting
> that would improve the readability of the document.
>  - The section 5.5 is the most critical for me, since I believe the reader
> will *not* understand the fitness table! My suggestion is:
>   . emphasize the definition of 'fit', 'conditional' and 'unfit', using the
> <definition> element?
>   . replace the number in the table with these labels
>   . further structure the table by adding some headings, such as: video
> format, audio formats, image formats
>
> Cheers.
>
>  Raphaėl
>
> --
> Raphaėl Troncy
> CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
> Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands
> e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
> Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
> Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
> Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 13:33:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:32 GMT