- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:42:13 -0500 (EST)
- To: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
- cc: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jack Jansen wrote:
>
> Upon reading the HTTP spec it is indeed clear that the authors want the
> Content-Range value to be canonical, unique and in bytes. I think I also
> se the value of that decision.
No, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-08
It _defines_ only bytes.
>
> I would be more in favor of a separate header (either
> Content-Range-Equivalent or Fragment) than of the multipart solution,
> because the multipart solution would introduce yet another "language"
> inside the multipart bit.
>
> But: I'm not sure I understand the value of the {} expressions. Do we really think there are real-world cases where we could do byte-range based caching if a media item was fragmented along any axis other than the time axis? So, something like
>
> Content-Range-Equivalent: t:npt 28.85-100.34/653.791
>
> should be good enough, I think.
> --
> Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
> If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman
>
>
>
>
>
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 15:42:18 UTC