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