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

Re: Action-28: updated syntax document with time formats

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:51:46 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02830902041551u43d1397ob629f3fe793c14bc@mail.gmail.com>
To: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org> wrote:
> 2009/2/5 Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>:
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org> wrote:
>>> 2009/2/4 Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>:
>>> Further, the meanings of specific frame separator characters (: . ; ,)
>>> are more complex:
>>> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/2001-09/msg01432.htm, and using a
>>> single colon might seem to imply one of those meanings.
>> Ah, they are using different characters to differentiate between
>> different time specifications. I'm not sure I like that idea.
> it's how it is in Avid CMX EDL, and if people are going to use URLs
> with time ranges to denote source media in web video editors (as
> metavid is already doing) then there may be an expectation that the
> syntax supports split field timecodes.
> We don't have that as a requirement, but we may in future. Hence
> perhaps it is a bad idea to use a single colon ':' now as the frame
> separator.

I totally agree with not using a single colon as a separator. I just
thought that it would make sense to specify in a URL which time scheme
we are using (as we did in the temporal URIs). However, if there is
already a widespread consensus on specifying time scheme changes by
using different characters, then we may as well use that. I am only
afraid that people will make mistakes easily.

Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 23:52:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:42 UTC