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

Re: Feedback from FOMS

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:25:55 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831001270325y57f78d2et7f8e710a294b87b9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
> 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.

5.2.1 has no new HTTP headers - it simply relies on the browser using
byte range requests. Its the next sections that have these and yes, I
agree, these aren't ready yet.

> 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).

That's an easy fix. Please just commit it where you see it necessary.

Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 11:26:48 UTC

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