Re: Proposed text to close ISSUE-2

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org> wrote:
>
> 2009/2/12 Raphaël 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 :-)

Agreed - in particular since the whole discussion about ISSUE-2 was
about extracting keyframes from videos, it is important to explain
this particular case.

Silvia.

Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 21:35:43 UTC