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 22:52:39 +0900
Message-ID: <dba6c0830902120552j544f5d6cl767f7e6a13cfe04a@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 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.

Ok that's much clearer. Perhaps that clarification should be added to
the summary, as that case is (apparently, nearly) in scope of the
issue :-)


Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 13:53:14 UTC

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