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 19:10:28 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830908260210v7090efe1u65474cb526628d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Christian Timmerer (ITEC)" <christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>
Cc: cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi Christian,

I appreciate that there is a reference implementation, but as long as there
is no real-world application that is actually using it, the reference
implementation is not of much use.

It has already been established that there seems to be no real-world
application that makes use of the scheme, which is what I was referring to.

My question was therefore referring to the next step: would anyone object to
the new scheme? Would you?

I guess we cannot answer that for all MPEG participants before we roll it
out and wait to see if somebody objects. So far I have not heard anyone
speak up.


On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Christian Timmerer (ITEC) <
christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at> wrote:

> 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 09:11:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:43 UTC