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

Re: ACTION-76 : Question if MPEG-21 Part 17 got registered on IANA as a media mime type for fragments

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:43:44 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830908260143s49373074n831cc493fdbabec9@mail.gmail.com>
To: cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi Cecil,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@enst.fr>wrote:

> Hi Silvia,
>
> Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit :
>
>> but it
>>> seems to me that the important questions are more technical: is this
>>> scheme
>>> good or not, is it too complex to implement or not, should it be profiled
>>> or
>>> not, extended or not ...
>>>
>>
>> I agree, that is the key question. So, are you aware of any MPEG
>> implementations that have implemented the fragment addressing schemes?
>>
> No.
>
>  If not, that seems to me to be an indication of it being too complex.
>>
> I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. There may be other reasons.



OK, fair enough. But would you think MPEG people would have a problem with
using the newly defined schemes or would they defend (for whatever reason)
the existing fragment addressing scheme for MPEG?

If there are no implementations (for whatever reasons), I don't see much of
an issue in introducing a new one - that's all.

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 08:44:45 GMT

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