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

Re: ISSUE-1: Combining Media Fragment URI with other time-clipping methods

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:03:24 +0100
Message-ID: <497F92BC.4050103@cwi.nl>
To: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
CC: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

Dear all,

Thanks for your inputs Jack, Silvia.
>>> I understand that specifying a time-clipping method, for example in 
>>> SMIL, is
>>> relative to the (timeline of the) resource. Therefore, what's 
>>> happened if I
>>> have:
>>> <video clipBegin="5s" clipEnd="15s"
>>> src="http://www.example.com/video.mov#t=20,30"/> ?
>>> Scenario 3: the clipping method is done relatively to the media 
>>> fragment but
>>> bound to the media fragment, the UA plays the video segment between the
>>> seconds 25 (=max[20,20+5]) and 30 (=min[30,20+15]).

Silvia + Jack (in case the fragment is used out-of-context):
>> From my viewpoint, the URL points to a resource. Thus scenario 3 is
>> the correct one, because from a SMIL POV, the clipBegin and clipEnd
>> attributes are calculated on the resource.

Jack (in case the fragment is used in-context):
> In this case I think my answer is: we don't know, and we don't care. If 
> the video fragment is used in-context it depends on the application what 
> the best solution is.

Do we have a consensus on that?
Better phrased: does someone have an objection?


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 Tuesday, 27 January 2009 23:04:14 UTC

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