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

Re: Range syntax

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:54:53 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830909110154h78e20a7bn9224b465d59de9af@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:03:27 +0200, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> 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).
>>
>>
> Not having read this thread and detail, can we please use the same format
> in URI fragments and HTTP headers? No one wants to write 2
> parsers/generators for the same thing.


I agree. That's why I made the proposal that I made. However, the separators
may need to be different on URIs to HTTP headers, simply because that's how
they are defined in their respective standards.

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 08:55:54 GMT

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