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

RE: Track fragments

From: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:29:58 +0100
To: "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Cc: "'DENOUAL Franck'" <Franck.Denoual@crf.canon.fr>, <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004801cab08d$b405b270$1c111750$@vandeursen@ugent.be>
On feb 18, 2010 at 11:53, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> Cc: Davy Van Deursen; DENOUAL Franck; public-media-fragment@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Track fragments
> 
> 2010/2/18 RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>:
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/ImplementationExperim
> >>> ent#Segm
> >>> ents_via_the_HTTP_Range_header
> >>
> >> Sorry, I should have known - have read those docs before.
> >> Cool to see it implemented and working!
> >>
> >> I noticed one difference: As you used "time" instead of "t" on the 
> >> protocol level, we should adapt the spec to use that, too, IMO. 
> >> More readable anyway.
> >
> > Re [1] ... or the other way around :-) But let's first Yves complete 
> > his action 123,
> > http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/123
> 
> Yup, we have a draft at
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/WG_Resolutions#Media_Fr
> a
> gment_Headers
> , but it's not yet in the spec. I do vote for the more readable "time"
> than what is currently in the examples in the spec (which, 
> incidentally, I put there originally ;-).

One reason to use 't' instead of 'time' might be to be consistent with the
temporal fragment identifier (i.e., 't').

Best regards,

Davy

-- 
Davy Van Deursen

Ghent University - IBBT
Department of Electronics and Information Systems - Multimedia Lab
URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be/dvdeurse
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 11:29:58 GMT

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