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

Re: marking some sections as "ready for implementation"

From: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:04:28 +0900
Message-ID: <dba6c0831002100104s3639e7dme29c08db8084361@mail.gmail.com>
To: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
2010/2/9 RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>:
> Hi Conrad,
>> for this part (which only relates to how a client acts on a #t=), I
>> don't think it's necessary for the Media Fragments spec to say how a
>> user agent actually retrieves the data for a given media-type. This is
>> really dependent on that media-type; it may involve one or more
>> byte-range requests (eg. in the two schemes you mention for Ogg), or
>> it may involve loading auxiliary resources which describe where to get
>> various bits required for a time offset (eg. for quicktime adaptive
>> streaming or MS smooth streaming), and these may then involve requests
>> of many different resources that make up the media. Basically my point
>> is that the specific mechanism depends on both what the media-type
>> specifies and what the client is capable of, and doesn't belong in
>> this section of the Media Fragments spec.
>> It might be simpler to just say that if the client is capable of
>> seeking in a resource, then the #t= indicates to the client that it
>> should seek to that time -- and perhaps we can even word that
>> unambiguously enough to be normative.
> Could you please add a paragraph in the Section 5.2.1 (in a note?) that says
> more or less that?

ok; I won't be able to do it before the teleconf but please put an
action on me to do it during the next week.

Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2010 09:05:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:44 UTC