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

Re: minutes of 2009-09-17 F2F meeting, Day 1

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:12:17 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830909180112y518e58e6s47e1db5c053a97bd@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
2009/9/18 RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>:
> Hi Silvia,
>
>>> †- 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
>>
>> I don't think we have much of a choice here since this request means
>> that the server cannot satisfy the content-range request header, will
>> therefore ignore it, and will therefore serve the full resource.
>> That's how http works, FAIK. I don't think we need to mandate anything
>> here - the HTTP spec already takes care of this - it's one of the
>> error cases we are looking at in the testing case.
>
> Hum, I agree with what you say in principle except that I don't think it is
> an error case! It will not generate a 4xx response for example, but rather a
> 200. But I think we agree on what should happen, just not yet on how to
> phrase it in our document :-)

Yes, for HTTP it is not an error. :-)


>> That was my understanding of the outcome of yesterday. And probably a
>> good start at the paragraphs I promised to add to the specification.
>> :-)
>
> OK. I don't see strong disagreement with what I have written, but you expand
> the explanations :-)

Excellent. Anyone else any disagreements?

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Friday, 18 September 2009 08:13:19 GMT

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