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

Re: Results of the media type review regarding fragment identifier (semantics)

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:13:47 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830904190613l367300b8k61e509fe14b53b81@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi Michael,

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Michael Hausenblas
<michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:
>
> Silvia,
>
>> I was under the impression that both MPEG7 and MPEG21 registered the
>> fragment syntax together with the MIME type, but obviously they
>> didn't.
>
> Well, as I said, looking at the IANA registry I was not able to find an
> indication for this. We should peradventure ping them and ask if they did
> (in some non-standard way, dunno?) or does the WG think this might be
> counter-productive and just open a can of worms?

I think those specs may indeed be part of the MPEG7 and MPEG21
standard documents and an ISO document is just as much a standard as
an IETF/IANA document. So, if you want to be complete, you may need to
add these.


>> Ogg/temporal URI only has an expired I-D for this. YouTube,
>> Google and the other Web 2.0 sites that provide temporal media
>> fragment addressing just simply provide it as a feature without
>> registring it.
>
> Yes. Again, I was just looking at the paper-trail part. Obviously there are
> formats out there that practically do so. This is now the second step and I
> guess we have in the SOTA already a good overview whom to approach regarding
> this.
>
> The only thing I'm saying here is essentially: from a *standardisation*
> point of view (IANA, IETF, W3C) it *seems* we have no clashes so far.

Yes, I was just supporting your statement.


>> Also please note that RTP/RTSP, while specifying protocol methods for
>> addressing time offsets, have left the URI syntax specification to the
>> server, see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2326.txt (search for
>> "fragment"). I have just added that information to
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/State_of_the_Art .
>> [Davy/Erik: you might want to add this to the WD].
>
> No you find me confused a bit. RFC2326 is not referenced from the IANA
> registry AFAIK. Would you mind adding a note to [1], if you think this
> changes anything on the finding itself?

That's because rtsp is a protocol and not a media type, so it won't be
specified as part of a media type. Problem with the media types is
that they were never meant to be protocol-specific. In any case, RTSP
should not have a problem adapting our specs.

Cheers,
Silvia.


> Cheers,
>      Michael
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/MediaTypeReview
>
> --
> Dr. Michael Hausenblas
> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan,
> Galway, Ireland, Europe
> Tel. +353 91 495730
> http://sw-app.org/about.html
> http://webofdata.wordpress.com/
>
>
>> From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:56:39 +1000
>> To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
>> Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Results of the media type review regarding fragment identifier
>> (semantics)
>>
>> Interesting indeed.
>>
>> I was under the impression that both MPEG7 and MPEG21 registered the
>> fragment syntax together with the MIME type, but obviously they
>> didn't. Ogg/temporal URI only has an expired I-D for this. YouTube,
>> Google and the other Web 2.0 sites that provide temporal media
>> fragment addressing just simply provide it as a feature without
>> registring it.
>>
>> Also please note that RTP/RTSP, while specifying protocol methods for
>> addressing time offsets, have left the URI syntax specification to the
>> server, see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2326.txt (search for
>> "fragment"). I have just added that information to
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/State_of_the_Art .
>> [Davy/Erik: you might want to add this to the WD].
>>
>> I agree that we should send letters to all the stakeholders that we
>> have identified and encourage them to use the current specification
>> under development, also encouraging them to give us feedback if they
>> come across any issues.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Silvia.
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Michael Hausenblas
>> <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> As of my actions [1] and  [2] regarding our ISSUE-3 I have now performed the
>>> review of the IANA media types registry. The question was how many media
>>> types in the audio-visual domain exist that define fragment identifiers and
>>> if so, where potential clashes with our proposed syntax/semantics exist.
>>>
>>> Short answer: 0.
>>> Long answer: see my write-up at the Wiki [3]
>>>
>>> I'm gonna close my actions now and move on with initiating the Test Cases.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>      Michael
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/42
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/47
>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/MediaTypeReview
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas
>>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>>> National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan,
>>> Galway, Ireland, Europe
>>> Tel. +353 91 495730
>>> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>>> http://webofdata.wordpress.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 19 April 2009 13:14:39 GMT

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