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  
>> EBNF I
>> 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 GMT

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