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

RE: Range syntax

From: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:21:04 +0200
To: "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: <public-media-fragment@w3.org>, "'Jack Jansen'" <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
Message-ID: <002001ca31d6$7e0f8870$7a2e9950$@vandeursen@ugent.be>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-fragment-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> fragment-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yves Lafon
> Sent: woensdag 9 september 2009 22:38
> To: Davy Van Deursen
> Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org; 'Jack Jansen'
> Subject: RE: Range syntax
> 
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Davy Van Deursen wrote:
> 
> >> hard to define the duration in the Content-Range: case.
> >> Jack, Davy, what's your opinion on this?
> >
> > Why would it be hard to define this duration? If the resource does
> not begin
> > at point zero, then this timing information must be present within
> the
> > resource. Therefore, the server will always be able to calculate the
> correct
> > duration of the returned fragment IMO.
> 
> Within the resource yes, but if only the fragment is served... That's
> another problem, as the duration in the Content-Range: is the one of
> the
> whole resource, not the fragment.

I still don't see the issue. If a server wants to serve a fragment, that
server (or a media slicing support tool available on that server) needs to
access the whole resource and is then able to get the full duration right?


--
Davy Van Deursen

Ghent University - IBBT
Department of Electronics and Information Systems Multimedia Lab
URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 05:22:21 GMT

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