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: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:09:10 +0200
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3EE74BAF-7342-4CBE-937F-D9D6E3FB2806@itec.uni-klu.ac.at>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>

Dear Silvia, RaphaŽl (I'd like to respond to both replies)
   First of all, I don't have any objections as long as it serves the  
purpose. However, it would be nice to have the reasons for not  
adopting existing other standards (such as MPEG-21 FID) somewhere  
documented on the wiki.

Btw. in the current draft on Media Fragments URI I wonder whether  
there's any difference between a segment and a fragment.

Thanks.
Best regards,
  -Christian

On Aug 27, 2009, at 5:39 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

> 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 ťcrit :
>>>
>>> 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 12:09:52 GMT

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