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

Re: Review of section 6

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:41:30 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830904131541i88fb17cr27c9daee3f268b64@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi again :)

2009/4/14 RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>:
> [I suspect Jack has already addressed some of these comments, but I made
> another run :-)]

Yeah, I would think so, too.

>
>> Section 6.1
>>
>> * Third paragraph: is missing an "a" in front of "list of name/value
>> pairs"
>
> nope, this is plural "... pairS"

No, it is "a list" - the list is still singular, it doesn't matter
what it consists of.


>> * Fourth paragraph: URL should be renamed to URI
>
> done (though URL are also URI ;-)

We should be consistent.


>> * Last paragraph: The result of doing spatial clipping on a source
>> media that has multiple video tracks †could be defined if a further
>> selector only selects one video track. Also, we could define that the
>> clipping is done on all video tracks the same way if no video track is
>> selected.
>
> I complete the note by:
>
> "The result of doing spatial clipping on a source media that has multiple
> video tracks is undefined if no track selection is applied first."
>
> So, generally speaking, it is undefined. We have rejected the idea of
> clipping on *all* video tracks during the last f2f meeting. Would we like to
> reopen this discussion? Are there some good cases for doing so?

No, that's fine. I wanted to find out if we have discussed this. I
missed the discussion, sorry.


Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Monday, 13 April 2009 22:42:22 GMT

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