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: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:10:53 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830908210310i75492152rb5db9cb7c6f158e9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
Cc: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
2009/8/21 Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>:
>
> 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).

Has SMIL got a good EBNF spec of this? If not, I can make it up. :-)

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 10:11:51 GMT

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