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

Re: Range syntax

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:36:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>
cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0909090834320.9101@wnl.j3.bet>
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Yves Lafon wrote:

> All,
> I has two ideas for solving this one.
> The first one is very straighforward and reuse the units we already defined:
> Range: npt=12:23.2s-13
> Range: smpte-30-drop=1:22:33-2:33:44
>
> ie: Range: <timeformat> '=' <start time> - <end time>
>
> And the same logic for Content-Range:
>
> Content-Range: npt 12:22.5-13.01/25.1
> Content-Range: smpte-30-drop 1:22:33-2:33:44.1/4:00:00
>
> ie: Content-Range: <timeformat> ' ' <real start time> '-' <real end time>
>                   '/' <total duration>
>
> Note that the use of '=' and ' ' is aligned with the Byte range definition.
>
> The other option would be to say that it's a time unit, and precise the unit 
> later:
>
> Range: time=npt:12:22.7-npt:13
> =>
> Content-Range: time=npt:12:22.5-npt:13.01/npt:25.1
>
> This one has the advantage of being more flexible, but less robust to the 
> introduction of new units (as they can't be advertised using Accept-Ranges).

One of the issue for the first case is when smpte is used, as the 
beginning of the resource might not be zero. In that case, it would be 
hard to define the duration in the Content-Range: case.
Jack, Davy, what's your opinion on this?


>
>

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

         ~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 12:36:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:34 GMT