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: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:37:18 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02830901271537va132c29he4e1c3077c2ab62e@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:03 AM, RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks for your inputs Jack, Silvia.
> Summary:
>>>>
>>>> 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):

I totally agree with Jack.

>>
>> 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?

I guess it burns down to who makes the decision on using the URI
in-context or out-of-context. Since that should really be a decision
for the application to make, we don't really need to make a decision
here - but maybe only give some guidance.

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 23:37:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:32 GMT