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

Re: Discovery and fallback for media segment addressing over HTTP

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 08:31:47 -0400 (EDT)
To: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>
cc: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904080827420.18162@ubzre.j3.bet>
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Conrad Parker wrote:

> There are three issues here:
>
> 1. Addressing syntax: query or fragment?
That's the issue on sub-resources (with possible link to the original) vs 
fragment.

> 2. Negotiation mechanism: is a more cacheable method available?
> 3. Response mechanism: just one HTTP response, or multiple byte-range referrals?
>
> You are referring to the addressing syntax, where a fragment is
> interpreted and used to construct an initial HTTP request header.
>
> The recomposition steps which I described in the other post (about
> byte-range referral) are a way for the UA to handle the subsequent
> response.
>
> As for the motivation, I'll assert that caching is extremely important
> for use cases like seeking in video resources.

Seeking is the easiest case to be able to merge even if the unit is 
seconds and not bytes. Of course the easiest is to fetch first the TOC of 
the video resource, with all seeking points, relationship to chapters, 
bytes etc... and let the client decide on the best strategy for its 
specific implementation. But still, you have to locate that metadata (same 
issue as finding the resolver from a non-byte unit to bytes).

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

         ~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 12:31:56 GMT

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