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

Re: ABNF for fragment syntax

From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 22:44:22 +0100
Message-Id: <82F8E46D-E9C3-45B1-BF7A-413D0DF23BA0@cwi.nl>
To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>

On  4-Mar-2009, at 12:08 , Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:21 PM, RaphaŽl Troncy  
> <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl> wrote:
>> Dear Silvia,
>>
>>> I would say that is really up to the container format to define. We
>>> could recommend that there be a naming scheme such as video[0] ...
>>> video[n] and audio[0] ... audio[n] to address multiple a/v tracks,
>>> maybe even text[0] ... text[n]. But I don't think they make much  
>>> sense
>>> - it would be better the names chosen had some semantic meaning,  
>>> such
>>> as "video", "sign-language", "audio", "music", "speech",
>>> "sound-effects", "audio annotations", "subtitles-en", subtitles-de",
>>> "karaoke-en", "lyrics" etc.
>>>
>>>  And .. yes, at some point somebody should have some standard names
>>> for these - in particular for accessibility it would be nice to be
>>> able to say through the protocol "I want no audio tracks, but video
>>> and sign-language and all text tracks".
>>>
>>> Maybe there is a scheme that we need to develop, where the codec  
>>> type
>>> is also part of the naming, e.g. video.sign-language,
>>> audio.annotations, video.music etc. We haven't thought much about
>>> structure for describing tracks yet.
>>>
>>> What do people think?
>>
>> It may be beyond our charter, but I think it is definitively  
>> something that
>> is worth to note, investigate if not bring a solution. Silvia, what  
>> about
>> creating an issue in the tracker recording exactly your message?
>
> Hmm, please do if you think it's worth it. I don't quite know how to
> go about it.


My original question was "didn't we have a scheme for this, or did we  
drop that at some point", and reading this email thread I have the  
distinct impression that we had exactly this discussion in Gent, and  
that the outcome was that while it looks promising at first glance it  
becomes very complicated once you dig into it a bit more, and that we  
shouldn't do it.

So, as I started this thread, let me now formally suggest that we do  
not implement anything along these lines. Any naming of tracks is  
purely up the the container format.
--
Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma  
Goldman
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 21:45:05 GMT

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