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

Feedback on edits to sections 1-5 of WD

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:44:36 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830904122344i5ef5d843nb59ec0389b1e3fdb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi all,

I have today applied all the edits that I was actioned with in the
last meeting and that were in recent email threads and that I have
stumbled across myself. Here is a rough report of what I have done.

Let me start with the actions:

>  * ACTION-58: Silvia to write the introduction
Done.

>  * ACTION-59: Silvia to make the changes to sections 1-5
Done.

>  * ACTION-61: Conrad/Silvia to review 4-way handshake specification in the wiki
Done and provided feedback in an email.

>   Silvia: most sections are still independent blocks
>   ... we need lead-over text
Done.


Further Feedback:
==============

>   Erik: i wonder if the individual use cases should be
>   ordered differently, following the various dimensions: time, space,
>   track, name

I was wondering if we should add to section 5 for every requirement
which use cases that were listed above it embraces. That would just be
a list of numbers from above but will tell us whether we have indeed
covered all the use cases that we agreed are within scope. What do
people think?


>   raphael: original charter had 2 documents - a use cases &
>   requirements ... and a technology document
>   ... we now have all in one document

I have made a note of this at the beginning of the document. I do
indeed think that section 6 & 7 should go into a separate document. I
also think we need to still write a lot more detail on these sections.
I think the issues that we cannot currently forumlate will come as we
are creating implementations for the file formats.


>   raphael: replace the 1,2,3 in the fitness table by human
>   readable labels: fit, partial, etc.

I have made thes changes in the table. While doing so, I went through
the Ogg-related formats and fixed them up. I only had a brief look at
other formats but have the suspicion that most of the fitness
estimations may actually be wrong or miss an explanation. For example,
I cannot see how QTText makes QuickTime mov files partially capable of
supporting track addressing. Has anyone actualy thoroughly gone
through this table? Might this be something to be done at the F2F and
completed with comments?

Also, may I have split the table into several tables according to
audio/video/image codecs and container formats, because it makes it
much more readable.


I think it's looking much better now. :)
Enjoy!

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 06:45:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:33 GMT