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

Re: ISSUE-2: What is the mime type of a media fragment? What is its relation with its parent resource?

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:40:54 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02830901270440p312fa2ccx12aaa5169b31210c@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:26 PM, RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl> wrote:
> ISSUE-2: What is the mime type of a media fragment? What is its relation
> with its parent resource?
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/2
> Raised by: RaphŽl Troncy
> Related to a discussion started by Guillaume [1].
> A media fragment URI can be used for addressing, for example, a particular
> audio track of a mkv movie, or a particular key-frame of a video. What is
> the resulting mime type of the secondary resource specified by the fragment
> (audio, thumbnail, text)? Should we specify it in the recommendation?
> What RFC3986 does say about the mime type of a fragment [2]?

The mime type is information that is provided by the server through
http to the client. It relates to a resource. I wonder what happens if
we specify a jpg thumbnail extract from a video through a fragment
identifier ... since a fragment only identifies a subresource and not
a new resource, we may not be able to do so. Yves, what do you think?

> Side issue: in case we create a new resource (i.e. using the query '?'
> parameter instead of the fragment '#' parameter), how do we make explicit
> the relationship with the parent resource it was extracted from?

By leaving out the query part, we arrive at the parent resource.
Specifying the parent resource should not be a problem for either
query or fragment, I would say.

> Do we use Link: rel="part_of" <video_uri> as suggested by Yves [3]?

I am not even sure we want to do these kind of URIs:

They should really be something more like:

What do people think?

Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 12:41:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:41 UTC