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

Re: plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:35:21 +1000
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, public-media-fragment@w3.org, public-ietf-w3c <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, ietf-types@alvestrand.no
Message-Id: <2DA31A03-C0F4-48E9-BD0F-ECA69188D154@mnot.net>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Well, ietf-types is important from a functional standpoint, but I don't know that it should be used to discuss the document itself. That sort of coordination should happen on apps-discuss and the URI list, I think.

Regards,


On 23/04/2010, at 12:19 AM, Dan Connolly 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
> 
> 


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 23 April 2010 00:35:54 GMT

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