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

RE: ACTION-155: Figures illustrating URI fragment Resolution in HTTP

From: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:09:46 +0100
To: "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003f01cacaa3$421590b0$c640b210$@vandeursen@ugent.be>
Hi Silvia,

On mrt 23, 2010 at 00:16, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ACTION-155: Figures illustrating URI fragment Resolution 
> in HTTP
> Hi Davy,
> 5.2.1-5.2.3 look fine to me in both cases.
> 5.2.4 is interesting. The replies on 5.2.4 will actually always need 
> to have a multipart message body reply (multipart/byteranges), because 
> there will be setup bytes and data bytes, so it will basically look 
> like 5.2.2 in the multiple byteranges section, but also include the 
> header data.

I now included this in the examples. However, what should we use as content
type for the header information? For the moment, I used video/setup. If we
use video/ogg, the client does not know where the header information is
located in the response or can we assume that this will always be the first
byte range?

> Also, it still needs an additional request header - maybe the Range 
> header could be extended to be:
> Range: t:npt=11-19;include-setup

I updated the examples with your proposal.

Best regards,


Davy Van Deursen

Ghent University - IBBT
Department of Electronics and Information Systems - Multimedia Lab
URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be/dvdeurse
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 16:10:22 UTC

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