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

Re: feedback on use cases and requirements

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:34:36 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830908192034w2194ff0auce3b4cb6c1afba19@mail.gmail.com>
To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi all,

This is to address my ACTIONs 94, 97, and 98:
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/94
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/97
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/98

1. I have updated the wiki with the syntax specification for the
wall-clock time:
 see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Dimensions

2. I have updated the Requirements document and added 2 use cases
about streaming:
 see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/overview.html#scenario2.5
and http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/overview.html#scenario2.6

3. I have updated the Specifications document with the following:
* formatting consistency
* added a section on query vs fragment
* added a section on wall-clock time specification
* added the ABNF for wall-clock time

4. I have sent an email reply re editUnit:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Aug/0029.html

5. I have updated the wiki with a sentence on the editUnit discussion:
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Discussion

Cheers,
Silvia.



On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Silvia
Pfeiffer<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Something else that I totally forgot to mention: we need to add an
> absolute time specification that contains day and year to our
> specifications, similar to what RTSP does:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2326.txt (section 3.7).
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
>
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Silvia
> Pfeiffer<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have had some discussions with a company that provides live
>> streaming solutions about our media fragment addressing approaches.
>> They are keen to make use of the specification for certain use cases
>> that they are after.
>>
>>
>> 1. A first use case that was provided is the following:
>> A URL to a live video stream may look as follows
>> http://www.example.com/video.ogv . It always points to the live data,
>> i.e. what is transferred "now". This maps to a current clock time,
>> e.g. http://www.example.com/video.ogv?t=clock:20090726T112401Z. So, if
>> we require to point 5 min back into the past, the user agent can
>> easily compute this backwards to e.g.
>> http://www.example.com/video.ogv?t=clock:20090726T111901Z.
>>
>> I think for this we may need to add to the use cases and requirements
>> that we are also considering live streams. And we should add this
>> particular case of pointing back 5min in time on a live stream to the
>> "Browsing and Bookmarking" section,
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#uc2.
>> What do people think?
>>
>>
>> 2. Another example use case that was provided is the following:
>> "Letís say you want to make an interactive Formula1 website for a live
>> race, the real-time commentary page links text fragments to timeframes
>> - readers can click on the text ĎAlonso accidentí and the stream they
>> are watching can jump back to the accident."
>>
>> I think we can attribute that use case to the named anchors:
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#scenario4.3
>>
>> Since this is a use case for live streaming rather than "canned"
>> content, I would suggest we add it to the section. Is that ok with
>> everybody?
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Silvia.
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 03:35:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:34 GMT