Re: Implementation Report for mediafragments.js

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:59:52 +0100, Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>  
wrote:

> Dear Erik, Davy, Yunjia, all,
>
> I am happy to announce that mediafragments.js passes all test cases as
> specified in [1]* (with TC0026-UA in the corrected version). You can
> run the tests on your own [2], additional unit tests are available,
> too [3]. You can interactively play with the library [4], where the
> raw JSON data as well as a pretty-printed version of the parsed
> results can be seen. The source code is on GitHub [5]. This
> (hopefully) closes my action to deliver an implementation report to
> the Working Group.
>
> Yunjia, you might consider upgrading to the latest version.
>
> Please let me know if you have additional questions. I consider
> releasing a user script [6] based on the library that - at least for
> temporal and spatial fragments - should add support to all browsers
> that support user scripts.
>
> Best,
> Tom
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases
> *) The library can of course not check for things that require
> low-level access to a media item (like resolution, length, chapters).
> [2] http://tomayac.com/mediafragments/implementationtests.html
> [3] http://tomayac.com/mediafragments/unittests.html
> [4] http://tomayac.com/mediafragments/mediafragments.html
> [5] https://github.com/tomayac/Media-Fragments-URI
> [6] http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/authoring.html
>

I'm not sure I understand what the pass criteria are here. TC0056-UA tests  
the track dimension and passes even when there's no DOM API that allows  
enabling/disabling tracks. (AFAIK no browser has shipped support for the  
AudioTrack and VideoTrack APIs yet.) It seems to me that it's only testing  
the parsing of mediafragments.js, is that correct?

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 17:18:29 UTC