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

Re: ACTION-123: Silvia to come up with ABNF for header syntax - FINISHED

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 19:41:21 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimtUdM9LlslvtEuDSKwhnF4oWkMc9Np7ZhMqvBe@mail.gmail.com>
To: DENOUAL Franck <Franck.Denoual@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:50 PM, DENOUAL Franck
> <Franck.Denoual@crf.canon.fr> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have some comments/remarks on the nice ABNF syntax for HTTP headers provided by Silvia:
>> 1- Should each grammar be self-descriptive or not ? (I would personally think: yes)
>> If yes, the following items (from MF URI and HTTP RFC) should be redefined:
>> -> byte-ranges-specifier
>> -> time-prefix, trackprefix, nameprefix
>> -> trackparam, nameparam
>> -> deftimeformat, smpteformat, clockformat
>> -> npt-sec (only ? not npttime?), frametime, datetime
>> -> token
>> -> byte-range-resp-spec
>> If no => at least a reference to the ABNF syntax for URI and to HTTP RFC should be inserted in HTTP ABNF syntax.
>
>
> I don't want to redefine things that we have already defined earlier,
> such as time-prefix, trackprefix, nameprefix, trackparam, nameparam,
> deftimeformat, smpteformat, clockformat, npt-sec, frametime, datetime.
> In the HTTP spec, things are also re-used across different sections
> and not re-defined.
>
> As for re-using some of the things from the HTTP spec: I have
> referenced where they come from, so that should be covered. But you
> are probably right in that I should add them to the condensed scheme
> in the appendix - as Yves has done for the URI spec - with a reference
> there. I'll do that now- it's not difficult.

All done, see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#collected-syntax-http
.

I am not sure moving the Range and Accept-Ranges header our of the
sequence is very useful, but they have not changed, so they are where
they belong.

Hope this is more acceptable now.

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 09:42:13 GMT

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