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

Re: Fwd: [whatwg] <video>/<audio> feedback

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 14:50:16 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830905082150i713d2afdp210109e0bb5e493@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2009 16:19:57 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> On the HTML5 WHATWG mailing list, we are having a discussion about
>> including or excluding context upon display of media fragments,
>> similar to what we have been discussing while getting to
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Issues#In-context_.2F_Out-of-context
>> .
>> Conrad and David have made the suggestion to give "?" another role in
>> the media fragment retrieval process. If one uses "#" to retrieve a
>> fragment, one expects to see the full video timeling and the retrieved
>> piece is only a small part of it. If one uses "?" to retrieve a
>> fragment, a new resource is created and that resource needs to get the
>> focus, i.e. when it is displayed, it should display none of the
>> context but only the timeline of the new resource.
> Does the Media Fragments WG really need to concern itself with how an UA
> handles "#"? While I certainly agree that it makes the most sense for the
> full context to be visible, the spec shouldn't need to say anything about it
>  as even the HTML5 spec says next to nothing about how time is represented
> visually.

Ultimately, an application will have the choice to do what it likes.
But if there is a huge difference between applications on what is
being displayed for a resource, users will get very confused and it's
not a standard any more. So, I think it makes sense to understand the
options and provide a recommendation.

Further, if there is a technical implication that one display means
make sense over another, it also indicates that it makes sense to make
the recommendation.

I think there is a very clear technical separation. As we say that
fragments are a part of larger resource, it can be expected by a user
that the context is represented. While for "?" a new resource is
created and thus the "fragment" is the complete content, so it makes
sense *not* to display any context of a related resource here, since
it's not actually the context of the resource itself.

>> I wanted to take that discussion back into here, since FAIK we haven't
>> made a decision yet on how to separate "?" from "#".
>> I like the suggestion.
> I agree that the difference between queries and fragment identifiers should
> be clarified if it could be confusing, perhaps as non-normative text in the
> spec (or elsewhere).

There is the technical difference which comes from the URI
specification that a fragment does not create a new resource, while a
query does. This is abstract and indeed has to be made more concrete
and the logical implications described. What Dave suggested, Conrad
supported on WHATWG, and I have tried to describe in my own words here
make sense IMHO. But I am not sure we have looked at all the
implications yet.

Received on Saturday, 9 May 2009 04:51:13 UTC

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