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

RE: ACTION 192 and 195

From: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:30:22 +0100
To: 'RaphaŽl Troncy' <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Cc: "'Media Fragment'" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>, "'Erik Mannens'" <erik.mannens@ugent.be>
Message-ID: <004301cb8bec$82641190$872c34b0$@ugent.be>

> > Regrets for this phone conf, I will be in a project meeting.
> > Regarding my open actions (192 and 195), I completed these during the
> > F2F at TPAC so you can close them.
> Regarding the ACTION-192 "update the specification to state what the processing should do when media fragments request (time
> dimension) does not match exactly how the media item has been encoded "
> ... I cannot find the text that clarifies this in the section 5 or 5.2.
> Where did you put it?

you can find it in Section 6.2.5. I put it there, next to the other error cases. 

> Regarding the ACTION-195 "add a paragraph in the section 7.1 to specify that video, audio, img or any href is all treated
similarly (range
> request issued when facing a media fragment)"
> ... I can read the following paragraph in the section 7.1:
> "If the UA follows the scenario specified in section 5.1.2 Server mapped byte ranges, then it is recommended that when a media
> fragment identifier is detected in a URI (independent of the underlying MIME-type of the resource behind the URI), a RANGE request
> is sent to the server.
> If the MIME-type turns out to be a media type, the server will interpret the RANGE request as specified in section 5.1.2 Server
> mapped byte ranges, otherwise it will just ignore the RANGE header."
> Should we first say that this media fragments URI must happen in a specific context, i.e. within a <audio> or <video> element and
> *only* for the time dimension in order to trigger this so-called optimistic processing of media fragments?

Agreed after reading today's minutes. 

> I also observe this is a contentious issue, and we will need to see if browsers want to implement this. This is also related to
> 197.

Hmm, maybe we should remove then this paragraph from section 7.1, extend it with your above remarks and put it into the intro of
Section 5? I can't see the difference between action-195 and action-197 ...

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 Wednesday, 24 November 2010 15:30:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:45 UTC