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

Re: ACTION-163: Send a resolution on handling non-existing or illegal fragments

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 18:55:27 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTil-W-qiABtNWcnfRE2BPf0MOz4Ox2cRbcHVPedX@mail.gmail.com>
To: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
2010/5/19 RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>:
> Dear all,
>
> I took this action last week, in order to notify all some of the changes we
> have discussed regarding the output of test cases dealing with non-existing
> and illegal fragments. Note that these changes have already been committed
> in the Wiki by Silvia at
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TemporalDimension as she has
> announced today.
>
> The resolution is as follow: in case of an empty fragment, e.g. #t=a,a where
> a>=0, or an non-existing fragment, e.g. #t=a,b where a>b, we consider that a
> media fragment aware UA knows beforehand that this will be an empty fragment
> (resp. an non-existing fragment) and SHOULD therefore:
> †- a) if the UA does not have the setup data for this media, issue a Range
> request with just "include-setup", and receive the setup data in a 206
> Partial Content response.
> †- b) if the UA has already the setup data for this media, do nothing (no
> HTTP request issued).
>
> The situation where no request is issued might be perceived as irritative.
> The rationale is that this is what currently happens when one click on a
> non-existent fragment of an HTML page.
>
> If you disagree with this resolution, then please shout!
> Next step will be to modify the WD with this modification. Anyone?
> Tracker, this is ACTION-163.

I can report: this has now already been committed (was working on it
as you wrote the email).

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 09:03:42 GMT

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