- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:12:28 +0200
- To: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>
- CC: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Dear all, >> - We agree on the respective role of '#' and '?'. The border will be >> whether a transcoding process will be needed or not on server side to >> satisfy the request. > > I recall that we simply agreed that both syntaxes are useful and > within scope for MFWG. > > We didn't pass any resolutions along the lines of "if not transcoding, > MUST/SHOULD use syntax X, otherwise MUST/SHOULD use syntax Y" (and I > don't think we should mandate such a distinction). Amendment validated. Indeed, my phrasing "We agree on the respective role of '#' and '?'" is (purposely) vague. I also think we should not mandate such distinction. I can see 3 (working) cases (among many others that will generate different behavior): - UA send a media fragment request with a hash (e.g. temporal dimension), the server can satisfy the range request (without transcoding) and generate a response as expected. - UA send a media fragment request with a hash (e.g. spatial dimension), the server would need to transcode to serve it. We _might_ mandate that in this case, it does not serve a fragment but the whole resource and let the UA decides what to do with the fragment part - UA send a media fragment request with a query, and we don't care anymore if a transcoding operation is necessary or not, the server will serve a new resource, with optionally? a link header pointing to the parent resource. Do we agree on that? Cheers. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department 2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France. e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 07:13:21 UTC