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

Re: Procesing requirements

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:06:27 +0100
To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u6qvg1h2atwj1d@sisko.linkoping.osa>
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:51:38 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer  
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>  
> wrote:

>> We might still have to discuss if we want to tolerate some invalid
>> percent-encoding and if non-UTF-8 encodings should be possible. (I think
>> both are a bad idea.)
> How is non-UTF8 encoding for other URI schemes dealt with?

I assume behavior is wildly different for different MIME types. For HTML  
the fragment component is decoded using the document's encoding, which  
leads to fun bugs when a browser guesses the wrong encoding of the  
document. If we allow non-UTF-8 encodings we have to determine it by  
context somehow, which is easy to break when copying URIs or if the  
environment somehow changes. Clearly, my "vote" is for mandating UTF-8 for  
now and change it only if there are implementation issues or feedback  
during last call.

>> In order to write these sections, I needed to break apart the ABNF  
>> section
>> to make each production linkable. Since other W3C specs seem to use  
>> did this too, which amounted to replacing / with |. If you would rather  
>> use
>> ABNF I can change that back. Pay special attention to the note at
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#fragment-structure
> I care about it being consistent - I don't mind the EBNF specification
> over ABNF.

I'll also add that I'm not particularly familiar with either EBNF or ABNF,  
so if an expert wants to have a look to see if the syntax is actually  
valid that would be great.

>> Effectively I have broken the connection that existed before between the
>> name-value syntax and the syntax of each dimension. We need to go over  
>> the
>> validity constraints and make sure that they still make sense.
>> Plenty of cleanup to the ABNF is possible (e.g. the *prefix productions  
>> are
>> quite useless now), but I've left everything for now.
> I don't think they are useless. The naming of the dimensions has to be
> done somewhere.

Sure, the names have to be defined, and should be in that section. What I  
meant to say was that right now they're only referenced in "If name is a  
valid production of the timeprefix syntax", where it would actually be  
more readable to use the string constants directly. We'll clean this up in  
time though.

Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 20:07:24 UTC

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