- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:33:19 +1000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org, public-ietf-w3c <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, ietf-types@alvestrand.no
Hi Dan, Does the IETF have a mechanism to request mime type owners to update their specs to integrate something like a fragment specification for URIs? If so, that would be helpful. Regards, Silvia. On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > +cc ietf-types@alvestrand.no ; > thread begins at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Apr/0039.html > > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 09:32 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: >> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/#standardisation-terminology > [...] >> > "The Media Fragment WG has no authority to update registries of all >> > targeted media types. ... We recommend media type owners to harmonize >> > their existing schemes with the ones proposed in this document and >> > update or add the fragment semantics specification to their media type >> > registration." >> > >> > Is there a plan to get that recommendation implemented? >> >> I can offer to do an update of the Ogg RFC >> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5334.txt with these fragment >> specifications. >> >> Though, to be honest, it will be easier to just get implementations >> and then, if they catch on, update the RFC. > > Well, that's a plan of sorts... but it's important to coordinate > that with the IETF. It's not polite for W3C to unilaterally > encourage implementations to deploy certain designs that will > constrain updates to IETF RFCs. > > I wonder who to coordinate with from the IETF side... > The http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-types > page says it's owned/run by Harald Alvestrand and Mark Baker (distobj). > Does this play make sense to you? > > Otherwise, Mark N., would you suggest anybody in particular > to coordinate with? > >> The reason that we can do implementations without much issues is that >> virtually no other implementations of fragment schemes on media >> resources exist. Even where schemes were developed such as at YouTube, >> these schemes were not done on the media resource, but on the Web page >> URLs. Also see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#ExistingSchemes >> for a more indepth analysis of the state of affairs. The exisiting >> MPEG scheme has not been implemented anywhere FAIK and would not clash >> since it always starts with mp(). >> >> Cheers, >> Silvia. >> > > > -- > 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 00:34:16 UTC