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

Re: Expressing complex regions with media fragments - use cases + possible solution

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:55:38 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=5UfaFiXnduEgxRZwo3uEXdBkj1ZEZgy7a6eQo@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernhard Haslhofer <bernhard.haslhofer@univie.ac.at>
Cc: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr, Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, public-media-fragment@w3.org, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Simon Rainer <Rainer.Simon@ait.ac.at>
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Bernhard Haslhofer <
bernhard.haslhofer@univie.ac.at> wrote:

> Silvia,
> for images  we can definitely solve the rendering with SVG; for other media
> types (e.g., videos) we could also define / reuse elements that define the
> necessary semantics for expressing segment/fragment/region information. But
> then we have two divergent developments: "the MF spec for addressing
> fragments in media objects " (implemented by browsers) and  some other "spec
> for addressing fragments in media objects in the context of Web annotations"
> (implemented by annotation clients running in browsers).
I actually don't see that as a problem, because they have different goals:
one is presentational the other is referential. I don't think you would
share the URLs that you are using for the annotations in a single URL, since
they actually require the annotations and everything to be delivered with
them to mean anything, so a link to the full resource that has everything it
in makes a lot more sense IMHO. Then, you could on top of that use a slicing
MF URL to zoom into a particular region of the full resource to see the
diverse annotations.

As long as you are using SVG for providing annotations, I think you are
following a standard and that is good enough.

> If the MF spec proposes some solution (ref approach, SVG approach,
> whatever) for addressing complex regions, we could build on that...

Why not just reference a SVG directly as the mask description - that's much
better than a MF URL. After all, it's not about delivering fragments for
your use case, but about delivering annotations on the full resource, IIUC.

I think I'm almost convinced now that for that use case we don't actually
need URLs - but feel free to explain to me why it would all need to be in a
single URL.

Received on Friday, 10 September 2010 10:56:31 UTC

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