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

Re: Timeline to Last Call

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:54:00 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinBtjP8b38YpCi+gCs8AbRk3eRR_SY5Df+YZ9tF@mail.gmail.com>
To: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Davy Van Deursen

> Hi Silvia,
> > as the HTML spec is moving to last call, we should probably get more
> active in having the media fragment URI uses integrated into
> it.
> > I have forwarded the timeline that they are proposing to follow.
> >
> > The key right now is that we should probably register a bug in the bug
> tracker for any spec text that we want to see entered for
> media
> > fragment support. The deadline is 1st October.
> >
> > I am concretely thinking about:
> > * support for temporal media fragment URIs in the @src attributes of
> media elements and what effect they have.
> > * the use of spatial media fragment URIs in the @src attribute of img
> elements.
> >
> > What do ppl think? Maybe at OVC/FOMS the groups of us that is there can
> have a chat about it?
> What is the reason to pick only a subset of the spec? For instance, why no
> spatial fragment URIs in the media elements and what
> about track media fragment URIs?

I don't mind if we propose spec text for everything to be added to the HTML5
spec, but the above have been concrete use cases that the HTML group has
discussed and therefore would be easy to add and I care about the most. If
we can formulate any text that we want to see added in such a way that all
aspects of our spec find entry, that would be great, too.

Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 20:54:54 UTC

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