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

Re: Feedback from FOMS

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:17:49 +0100
To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Media Fragment" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u66uzz2csr6mfa@sisko>
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:59:59 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer  
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:21:34 +0100, Raphaël Troncy  
>>> <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Silvia,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this very valuable report from FOMS.
>>>>
>>>>> After it was understood what the spec is about, it was suggested we
>>>>> split out those sections that are already stable and move those that
>>>>> are still in the works into a draft for later release. Thus, we can
>>>>> create a first, simple "versions" that can be implemented in full
>>>>> right now.
>>>>
>>>> I understand the need for the developers to be informed of what is  
>>>> stable
>>>> in a evolving spec and what is not, but I'm not a big fan of splitting
>>>> documents. Our charter tells what the 1.0 version should cover. I  
>>>> would
>>>> rather suggest we mark explicitly in our document the sections that we
>>>> consider are stable giving a clear 'go' to web developers to start  
>>>> implement
>>>> them and mark as unstable the sections we are actively working on.
>>>
>>> I think this is a good idea, it's approximately how HTML5 handles the  
>>> issue
>>> of sections with different maturity levels in the same spec.
>>
>> I'm happy with this, too.
>
> In the meeting today I suggested that in the next meeting we get the
> section that I think we all agree on (section 5.2.1
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#processing-protocol-UA-mapped
> and everything that it includes) into a shape such that we can mark it
> as "finished and read for implementation". Then we can hand this on to
> browser developers (in particular Opera and Firefox) for
> implementation.
>
> Philip mentioned one outstanding issue, which has to do with time spec
> and he will raise it on mailing list so we can resolve it by next
> week.
>
> Further then: prepare your arguments for next week's meeting if you
> don't think 5.2.1 is ready. :-)

I don't think this section is ready, but encouraging experimental  
implementations and soliciting feedback is one of the best ways to make it  
better. As far as I can see the syntax for the new HTTP headers isn't  
defined anywhere. We would also need processing rules for how a client  
should generate the output (perhaps just "must be a valid production of  
the foo syntax") and how the server is to interpret them (hooking into and  
probably tweaking the processing sections I added).

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 11:18:23 GMT

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