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: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:56:23 -0700
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: "public-media-fragment@w3.org" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>, public-ietf-w3c <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D2AE3ABE5@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Let me try to be clearer:

You say:

>"The Media Fragment WG has no authority to update registries of all
> targeted media types.

but I do think you have the authority to initiate such a change
by proposing an update to the BCP for registering media types,
and also proposing updates to the target media type registrations.

In order to make this change effective, of course, it will likely
require IETF consensus, but the proposed changes make sense and
improve the use of media types on the web.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ietf-w3c-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ietf-w3c-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 4:32 PM
To: Dan Connolly
Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org; public-ietf-w3c
Subject: Re: plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> In
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/#standardisation-terminology
>
> I see:
>
> "This essentially means that only media type definitions (as registered
> through the process defined in RFC 4288) are able to introduce a
> standard structure on URI fragments for that mime type."
>
> so far so good; then...
>
> "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? It doesn't
> seem responsible for W3C to Recommend the media fragments spec
> without some plan in place to get the IETF/IANA registrations
> updated.
>
> I suggest
>  (a) getting one or more IETF area directors to agree
>  to get the registrations updated
>  (b) making CR exit contingent on one or two of
>  the registrations getting updated
>
> The WG schedule currently has a fairly short CR period
>  http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/
>
> That makes a certain amount of sense given that I see
> fairly detailed discussion of test cases already.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Apr/thread.html#msg7
>
> So if plans are not already underway to get the
> registrations updated, I suggest getting started soon.
>
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E


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.

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.
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2010 18:57:00 GMT

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