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

RE: Track fragments

From: DENOUAL Franck <Franck.Denoual@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:07:18 +0100
To: "public-media-fragment@w3.org" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <40375B187E39BC4589F9C89097BD82A42528A3752E@cressida.crf.canon.fr>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com]
> Sent: lundi 15 février 2010 22:23
> To: DENOUAL Franck
> Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Track fragments
> 
> Hi Franck,
> 
> In the W3C HTML5 Accessibility Task Force, which is a subgroup of the
> HTML WG, we are right now working on a API for multitrack media files,
> see http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI .
> 
> Per track there will be the following attributes: name, role, type,
> lang, enabled .
> 
> Right now, the only interface we have regarded for track fragment URIs
> is to address them by name - which is a name given by the creator of
> the resource, i.e. it could be any random string.
> 
> It is possible do devise a track addressing method that includes some
> of the other attributes. For example, a combination of type, role and
> lang could make sense, something like:
> 
> #track=audio(audesc, en)&video(main,en)&text(cc,en)&text(sub,fr)


Exactly!
I'd rather use ',' as separator since '&' is currently used as a delimiter between two "namevalues"
#track=audio(audesc, en),video(main,en),text(cc,en),text(sub,fr)
The track API being defined in WAI seems interesting for track fragment discovery and some kind of "setup phase" between the UA and the server before the actual data exchange. 

--
    Franck.

> 
> I just made this up, so feel free to suggest any other markup means.
> 
> I actually have a an open issue at
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/4 about this,
> which hasn't progressed because we haven't really reached discussions
> about tracks yet - our focus so far was on the time dimension. It may
> be a good time now to start discussions on other dimensions.
> 
> One thing I need to add to this discussion is that track addressing
> with *URI fragments* may be less about addressing and more about
> activating. So, it interrelates very closely with the JavaScript API,
> which is why I am waiting for that to stabilise and have some initial
> implementations. This is certainly different if we use URI queries (?)
> for addressing, since then we compose a new resource with just the
> requested tracks.
> 
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:01 AM, DENOUAL Franck
> <Franck.Denoual@crf.canon.fr> wrote:
> > Dear fragmenters,
> >
> > Some time ago, there were discussions on defining default tracks or not...
> > Also related to the track dimension, wouldn't it be interesting to have the possibility
> to directly address multiple tracks ?
> >
> > Suppose a multimedia presentation containing one video stream with different audio
> streams (english, german, french,...) and one would like to get the video stream with the
> english version of the audio stream.
> > This is not possible with current track dimension even with the composition operator
> "&" since track allows the extraction of a single track.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > --
> >        Franck.
> >
> > P.S.: I've also seen that WG was recently extended for 1 year: do you think
> possibility for observers will also be extended ;-) ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2010 08:07:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:37 GMT