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

Re: Proposed text to close ISSUE-2

From: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:33:55 +0900
Message-ID: <dba6c0830902120533h5eda61d3o5166a26599b0f27c@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

2009/2/12 RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>:
> Dear all,
> I have suggested this week telecon to close the ISSUE-2: "What is the mime
> type of a media fragment? What is its relation with its parent resource?"
> [1].
> My proposed text summarizing the discussion thread concerning this issue is:
> "The mime type of a media fragment is the *same* mime time of its parent
> resource. Hence, a media fragment addressing a single frame of a video would
> be of mime type video. If the media format constrains the playability of
> such resource (e.g. MP4 or 3GP explicitly forbid to have video with a zero
> duration), then the selection of this fragment will fail. In other words,
> media fragment URI are bound to the limitations of the underlying coding and
> container formats."

This rationale seems to be limited to subviews of the original
resources, eg. an excerpt of video; in that situation it makes sense.

There was an earlier discussion about addressing a single frame of a
video as an image, ie. where the returned data would be formatted as
valid jpeg or png. In that situation, I think the mime-type of the
returned data should be image.
(Apologies if that is outside the scope of ISSUE-2).

Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 13:34:32 UTC

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