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

Re: feedback on use cases and requirements

From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:15:27 +0200
Cc: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2FFCBDBD-CAF3-49B2-8CAB-285C9439D35D@cwi.nl>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>

On 21 aug 2009, at 00:13, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

> Thanks for the trust. :-)
>
> However, I think we should review the clock time specification, see
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#clock-time
>
> At the moment it follows RTSP, e.g.
> t=clock:20090726T111901Z,20090726T112001Z
>
> This can be fairly unreadabe.
>
> I just checked HTML5 and they have done their own variant of the ISO
> 8601 format, see
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dates-and-times
>
> Examples are:
> "0037-12-13T00:00Z"      => midnight 13th Dec 37, UTC timezone
> "1979-10-14T12:00:00.001-04:00" => 14th Oct 1979, midday plus 1
> microsecond, UTC-4hrs
>
> The advantages are that we stay in sync with HTML, it's slightly more
> readable, and we provide the possibility of including timezones.
>
> What do others think about this?


Agreed. This also aligns with what SMIL uses, I think (checking... yes).
--
Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma  
Goldman





Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 08:22:20 GMT

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