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

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

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:21:20 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831003250121r20e7a741k71eddd6fc834fc33@mail.gmail.com>
To: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>
Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
Hi Davy,

Thanks for fixing these! Looks good now!


On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Davy Van Deursen
<davy.vandeursen@ugent.be> wrote:
<..>
>> 5.2.4:
>> Should
>>   Content-Range: t:npt 10-20/59
>> be
>>   Content-Range-Mapping: t:npt 10-20/59 ?
>> And should
>>   Content-Range-Mapping: t:npt 10-20/59 be
>>   Content-Range: t:npt 10-20/50 ?
>> and should
>>   Content-Range-Mapping: bytes 0-2000/32000 be
>>   Content-Range: bytes 0-2000/59000 ?
>> (Note both the change with -Mapping and the duration)
> Correct regarding the duration. The reason that I swapped Content-Range and
> Content-Range-Mapping was based on a suggestion by Yves. But honestly, I
> currently don't see any reason to write it like that anymore, so agree with
> your proposal to make it consistent with 5.2.2. But maybe Yves has a
> different view?

Well, we cannot use multiple byte ranges with the multipart/byteranges
content-type with a Content-Range-Mapping header, so I believe this is
the right way to do it. But let's wait what Yves says. :-)

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 08:22:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:38 GMT