W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > April 2010

Re: short report of 2010-03-31 teleconference

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:17:34 +0200
Message-ID: <4BBAE00E.7050903@eurecom.fr>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi Silvia,

> Sorry about tonight - I exceptionally had to have a cinema night with
> my son, so couldn't make it, but forgot to let you know beforehand.
> Sending out the meeting notice only a few hours before the meeting
> actually didn't help planning it either.

Indeed, I will try to make sure that agenda is sent at least 24 hours 
before the telecon, which means now for tomorrow's telecon :-)

> Anyway - I am still curious with Yves' objection to the
> Range-Equivalent header. I have not understood why we cannot use it in
> the reply. It is not being used in the request, so there should be no
> issue, IMO. But I have yet to hear and understand the reasons.

The issue, as far as I understood it, is that a 206 Partial Content HTTP 
response cannot contain custom headers, i.e. must have a Content-Range 
header but cannot have a Range-Equivalent (or whatever) new header. 
Therefore, the equivalence between bytes and a custom unit must be 
represented into the Content-Range header and not through a new header. 
At least, this is how I understand the issue.

Yves, could you point us towards some text or grammar that states this?
Cheers.

   RaphaŽl

-- 
RaphaŽl Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des CrÍtes, 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.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 07:30:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:38 GMT