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

Re: grammar extraction

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:36:09 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinq4j5g9LplTWkZe1eyLmzpsIpD_qy8oMrEAYEM@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Jack Jansen wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21 jun 2010, at 09:41, Yves Lafon wrote:
>>
>>> During last f2f, we discussed about the possibility to isolate common
>>> part of the grammar between header syntax and URI syntax.
>>> However the common part would be external definition and at most the time
>>> part without the units, like 'frametime' or 'clocktime' (the unit in the
>>> header needs a specific entry to avoid implied LWS).
>>>
>>> So it is worth doing? (Jack, any input?)
>>>
>>> (tracker this is about ACTION-174)
>>
>> There's the few "real" nonterminals you sketch, but also a couple that are
>> really indirectly-defined terminals, such as timeprefix, trackprefix,
>> trackparam, etc.
>>
>> It's not important, really: if you feel it isn't worth doing then let's
>> forget about it.
>
> In fact
> time-ranges-specifier  = timeprefix ":" time-ranges-options
> is wrong, it may become "t :ntp" or "t : ntp", because of implied LWS.
> I will fix those to be "t:ntp" / ...

And please use npt and not the network time protocol. ;)
S.
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 22:37:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:39 GMT