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

feedback on use cases and requirements

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:55:45 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830907260555t32437172sf34bba19f1172fdb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi all,

I have had some discussions with a company that provides live
streaming solutions about our media fragment addressing approaches.
They are keen to make use of the specification for certain use cases
that they are after.

1. A first use case that was provided is the following:
A URL to a live video stream may look as follows
http://www.example.com/video.ogv . It always points to the live data,
i.e. what is transferred "now". This maps to a current clock time,
e.g. http://www.example.com/video.ogv?t=clock:20090726T112401Z. So, if
we require to point 5 min back into the past, the user agent can
easily compute this backwards to e.g.

I think for this we may need to add to the use cases and requirements
that we are also considering live streams. And we should add this
particular case of pointing back 5min in time on a live stream to the
"Browsing and Bookmarking" section,
What do people think?

2. Another example use case that was provided is the following:
"Letís say you want to make an interactive Formula1 website for a live
race, the real-time commentary page links text fragments to timeframes
- readers can click on the text ĎAlonso accidentí and the stream they
are watching can jump back to the accident."

I think we can attribute that use case to the named anchors:

Since this is a use case for live streaming rather than "canned"
content, I would suggest we add it to the section. Is that ok with

Best Regards,
Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 12:56:40 UTC

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