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

Re: Proposed text to close ISSUE-2

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:43:21 +0100
Message-ID: <49942779.6050301@cwi.nl>
To: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>
CC: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

Dear Conrad,

> 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).

This is perfectly in-scope of this ISSUE. However, it seems to me that 
the group consensus is that "addressing a single frame of a video as an 
image" will create a *new* resource. It is therefore *NOT* a fragment. 
It might be possible to create such a resource using a '?' followed by 
the same syntax of the media fragment URI. It might be possible to use 
the link header provided by http to provide a (typed) link towards the 
video resource from which the image comes from. The mime type of this 
new resource would certainly be image/jpeg for example.

The summary is, returning an image frame from a video is not a fragment 
of this video.


RaphaŽl Troncy
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 13:44:09 UTC

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