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: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:39:22 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830908262039w5e16a1c1l98f621288407d37@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>
What problem are you trying to solve?
I'm trying to find objections from MPEG people to the schemes we are
pursuing.
Do you have an objection? And what are your reasons other than "there is an
existing spec"?
Best Regards,
Silvia.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Christian Timmerer (ITEC) <
christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at> wrote:

>
> Dear Silva,  reference software shall validate the standard for which it
> has been developed and can be used for conformance testing.
>
> If a missing mime type registration is the (only) reason for developing a
> new scheme, then this does not solve the problem.
>
> Best regards,
>  -Christian
>
> On Aug 26, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
> Silvia.
>
> 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 Thursday, 27 August 2009 03:40:24 GMT

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