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

Re: Temporal fragments of media with time stamps

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 05:54:00 -0500 (EST)
To: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
cc: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>, "'Bailer, Werner'" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, public-media-fragment@w3.org, 'Richard Wright-ARCHIVES' <richard.wright@bbc.co.uk>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1001180552260.31448@wnl.j3.bet>
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Jack Jansen wrote:

>
> On 16 jan 2010, at 10:25, Davy Van Deursen wrote:
>>
>> Temporal fragments should indeed take into account embedded time stamps.
>> Note that this is already stated in the specification [1].
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Davy
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/#processing-overview-interpretation
>
>
> Thanks for finding this one!
>
> But: this means that we have to look through the protocol description with this in mind.
>
> If I have a video http://www.example.com/example.mp4, which has 10 seconds worth of video, with timestamps 01:00:00:00 through 01:00:10:00, and a UA sends a request
> with
> 	Range: t:smpte=01:00:05:00-01:00:06:00
> what does it get back in the Content-Range header?
> I would assume the timestamps are as expected, but what is the duration 
> returned?

The duration should be the duration of the complete file, so 10s in this 
case. The fact that 10s and range is starting well over 10s is an 
indicator that the offset is not zero. Now... do we need to send the 
starting offset as well? (and if so using what kind of syntax).

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 10:54:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:35 GMT