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

Re: Processing requirements

From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:10:31 +0100
Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E40DC3FC-6702-43B1-A571-ED8E150771AC@cwi.nl>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>

On 11 jan 2010, at 11:31, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> If we think there's a real danger of name collisions we could go the whole
>>> way and prefix our names with mf- or something, but then you get ugly
>>> http://example.com/video.ogg?mf-t=3 urls. My preference is that for the 1.0
>>> spec we just cross our fingers, and it if turns out we are wrong we fix
>>> things with non-colliding names in the next version of the spec.
>> The prefix idea is a good one, but how about forcing the extensions to use
>> it instead of MF, just like with CSS: -foo-name. This would be applicable to
>> the fragment syntax too if UAs want to experiment, so you might see e.g.
>> #t=20&-o-aspect=4:3 or something if Opera wants to be able to force the
>> aspect ratio like this (we don't, it's just an example).
> Interesting... we should discuss this idea of including a
> "namespace"-style prefix. It makes it a bit lengthy and talkative, but
> indeed easier to segment out from other name-value pairs.

My suggestion is we keep this simple. At most: one non-normative paragraph somewhere, where we state "If you want to extend the name/value pairs please do so in a way that will likely not collide with other people's names (including future versions of this spec). We suggest use use something like -org-name, where org is an abbreviation of your organization."
Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 11:11:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:43 UTC