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

Re: media fragments versioning mechanism?

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:24:54 +1000
Message-ID: <u2u2c0e02831004221724g4d387dbcsb6c13f370fd7e148@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: public-media-fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi Dan,

We're currently only working towards version 1.0 - if there will be a
version 2.0, it will be years from now. It's a spec version similar to
how W3C has spec versions for e.g. HTML. In that next version will
have to be a description for how to move forward from now. As we don't
know what further requirements will be there in the future, we cannot
really define anything right now for how they will be different. For
example, a new time scheme would need a new time scheme identifier,
but we don't know what they will be, so it doesn't make sense to
specify them.

Cheers,
Silvia.



On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> I see that the media fragments spec has a version number
>
>  Media Fragments URI 1.0
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/
>
> What's the versioning mechanism? I can't find a central
> discussion of it, though I see things such as
>
> "In this version of the media fragments specification there is no
> extensibility mechanism to add time format specifiers."
>
> and
>
> "The SMPTE formats supported in this version of the specification are:
>
>      * smpte,
>      * smpte-25,
>      * smpte-30 and
>      * smpte-30-drop."
>
> what are implementations of this spec expected to do
> with fragments from a post-1.0 spec? How do they recognize them?
>
> Hmm... perhaps the error handling section answers most of
> those questions. I suggest you put something explicit there
> about version numbers.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/#error-general
>
> (see also
> Guideline 9. Allow extensions or NOT!
> in the QA Framework: Specification Guidelines
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20021108/#Gd-extensions )
>
> Oh... and make sure there are explicit test cases for all
> the ways that you think version 2 of the spec (or other
> extensions) might be different
> from version 1, to be sure that implementations built on
> version 1 of the spec don't constrain the design of
> version 2... or if they do, at least you have data
> about how they do.
>
> Do you have any such test cases yet?
>
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 23 April 2010 00:25:47 GMT

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