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

Re: Media Fragments URI parsing: pseudo algorithm code

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 18:59:23 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTil-QeGuWpHqf0nd8b0gIUdvoT4T7_-76hN3PKAE@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Philip Jšgenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:23 AM, RaphaŽl Troncy
<raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> wrote:
> Hi Silvia,
>> However, assuming you meant
>> http://www.example.com/football.movie#xywh=10,20,30,40&action=track ,
>> I would agree with the CSS approach. If I am a UA that doesn't know
>> what to do with action=track, then I will ignore that part of the
>> fragment's name-value pairs and only interpret the first part. If that
>> results in giving a cropped video and nothing else, then that is fine.
>> It is better than ignoring all the name-value pairs and downloading
>> the full movie!
> I interpret this answer as a +1 for Philip case. Feel free to tell me if I'm
> wrong. My reasoning:
> †- http://www.example.com/football.movie#xywh=10,20,30,40&action=track is
> NOT a valid media fragment according to our ABNF syntax. Nothing is sent to
> the server in case of a spatial fragment so let's take another example.
> †- http://www.example.com/football.movie#t=10,20&action=track is NOT a valid
> media fragment according to our ABNF syntax. So there will no Range request
> issued. The UA will simply get the whole resource ... and I understand this
> is not what you would like to happen.

So, now I am completely confused. I don't understand any more which
case Philip is arguing and which Yves. I thought Yves argued that they
are valid media fragments, while Yves that they are not.

I personally believe they should be valid, since our discussion was
always that we would ignore name-value parameters that the UA (or the
server) doesn't understand.

Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 09:00:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:45 UTC