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: Christian Timmerer (ITEC) <christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:57:32 +0200
Cc: cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-Id: <98054980-5758-410F-A347-0C240D17E505@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>

Dear Silvia,
   reference software of MPEG-21 Part 17 is available at [1].

Best regards,
  -Christian

[1] http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/ISO_IEC_21000-8_2008_Reference_Software/21000-17_FID/

On Aug 26, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

> 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 08:58:12 GMT

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