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

Re: ABNF for fragment syntax

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:42:10 -0500 (EST)
To: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0903030836540.23599@ubzre.j3.bet>
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009, Jack Jansen wrote:

>
> On  20-Feb-2009, at 15:12 , Yves Lafon wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> To complete my action (ACTION-41), please find attached the first draft of 
>> the ABNF definition of the syntax.
>
> I think I found only one bug: shouldn't the fractional part of clocktime 
> (both productions) be "." 1*DIGIT? Or is there something magic in abnf that 
> means that DIGIT isn't interpreted as 1DIGIT?

It depends if we want to allow infinite precision or only 1/10th of 
second. I think that you are right and we shoul allow infinite precision, 
so move
clocktime = ( 1*DIGIT [ "." 1*DIGIT ] timeunit ) /
             ( 1*DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT [ "." 1*DIGIT ] )
also timeunit might be optional, no? leading to
clocktime = ( 1*DIGIT [ "." 1*DIGIT ] [ timeunit ] ) /
             ( 1*DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT [ "." 1*DIGIT ] )

I will do the first modification now, for the second I'd rather wait for 
WG's decision.

> Also, didn't we predefine things like track=audio at some point, or did we 
> drop that (and have I forgotten about it)?

That is really a sub-part more than a fragment, we might address it for 
the identification of just the audio part (see discussion about changing 
mime type for fragment/full sub-resources), but I don't remember if we 
just forgot, or if we dropped. Do someone remember?

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 13:42:19 GMT

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