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

Re: ACTION-178: Review the complete document, remove unnecessary editorial notes before publication (Media Fragments Working Group)

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:18:08 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinF2CxKruroBSUgyw0trInn-KSEkw9MR9zFiUYy@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
Cc: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr, Media Fragments Working Group WG <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl> wrote:
>> On 21 jun 2010, at 15:49, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> 5. Clarify "track" dimension
>>> I am rather confused right now: how did we decide to do multiple
>>> tracks? In some places we talk about several tracks being able to be
>>> defined, but only a single track per spec (see 4.3.3 and the
>>> examples), and in other places we talk about there only being one
>>> track dimension allowed (D.2 3c and 5.1.2, Can somebody
>>> clarify?
>> We decided on multiple tracks recently (I actually seem to remember that you suggested it,  because your contacts said that single-track-selection would be useless). But, indeed, most of the text was written when we still thought of single track selection only.
> Yes, multiple tracks. But how? Through multiple track parameters or
> through one with semicolon-separated elements? I cannot remember
> whether we made an actual decision on that. Once somebody clarifies
> this for me, I can fix it either way. I would personally prefer them
> all in one track parameter, since that will make the different
> dimensions more consistent.

I think this example from Ninsuna suggests also that we will put
multiple tracks in one track param:

Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 04:19:13 UTC

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