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 19:01:43 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830909110201k1a938f32i2ce0b8199399fa1c@mail.gmail.com>
To: DENOUAL Franck <Franck.Denoual@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "public-media-fragment@w3.org" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:54 PM, DENOUAL Franck <Franck.Denoual@crf.canon.fr
> wrote:

>  Hi all,
>
>
>
> Concerning
>
>
>
> Content-Range: xywh 160,120,320,240/4:00:00
> Content-Range: xywh:pixel 160,120,320,240/4:00
> Content-Range: xywh:percent 25,25,50,50/4:00
>
>  I think that for Content-Range, it would be more coherent to have the
> same unit between the range and the instance length:
>
> ie: Content-Range: <spatialarea> ' ' <topleftx> ',' <toplefty>','
> <width>',' <height>
>                 '/' <total width>','<total_heigth>
>
>  Content-Range: xywh 160,120,320,240/320,240 (instead of 4:00:00)
> Content-Range: xywh:pixel 160,120,320,240/320,240
>

Yeah, I think these make sense.


>  Content-Range: xywh:percent 25,25,50,50/??? (100,100 not really useful!)
>

I think the total should be the same as above: <total width>,<total height>
in pixels

I also think it should be the same for duration: <total duration> in seconds


> But using this:
>
> 1- we loose the duration information
>

No, I don't think we do. The duration is still given in a time
Content-Range, which is where it belongs.


>  2- what is the instance-length when using 'track' unit (Content-Range:
> track 'video'/4:00)
>

Maybe the number of tracks?

What would it be for id? Maybe there it should be the duration?

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 09:02:44 GMT

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