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

Re: Media Fragments in Opera

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:38:19 +0200
To: public-media-fragment@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vkyx952asr6mfa@kirk>
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:10:55 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer  
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Chris Double <cdouble@mozilla.com>  
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Having read that thread, it seems to me that SMPTE should be treated as
>>> labels, not as something to be converted into a timecode. In other  
>>> words, if
>>> the resource doesn't contain these SMPTE labels, then one can't use the
>>> format. I'd be happy with the spec saying as much and simply not  
>>> supporting
>>> the syntax, as neither Ogg nor WebM can embed SMPTE timecodes.
>>
>> I'm inclined to agree.
>
> Interesting approach. That's certainly a valid way to approach it.
>
> Or we can be pragmatic and say that if you yourself know that your
> video has a certain framerate then you can pick the correct SMPTE
> timecode and you can address frame-accurately with that timecode. Any
> other SMPTE timecode will not give you more accuracy than a normal npt
> time.
>
> I'm myself critical about a need for such frame-accurate URI
> addressing, but that email thread proves there are people that think
> it's required.
>
> I do believe we can safely ignore it for now in implementations and
> wait to see the need. In all the years of doing Annodex, nobody every
> needed it.

I'd perhaps go even further and say that if there's no implementor  
interest nor compelling use case, then it shouldn't be in the spec at all.

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 22 October 2010 08:38:57 UTC

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