W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Implementation Report for mediafragments.js

From: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:23:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CALgRrL=GfySQjvMtwXwBnhi9cZWNtT=qQ8huF6qX9h34zUV7=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>, Erik Mannens <erik.mannens@ugent.be>, yl2@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Hi Davy, all,

As a follow-up question, TC0081-UA [1] is marked as illegal…

t=0:00:00.

…however, it seems to _legally_ fullfil npt-hhmmss, as defined by RFC
2326 [2] (below).

npt-time     =   "now" | npt-sec | npt-hhmmss
npt-sec      =   1*DIGIT [ "." *DIGIT ]
npt-hhmmss   =   npt-hh ":" npt-mm ":" npt-ss [ "." *DIGIT ]
npt-hh       =   1*DIGIT     ; any positive number
npt-mm       =   1*2DIGIT    ; 0-59
npt-ss       =   1*2DIGIT    ; 0-59

Do you agree that TC0081-UA should be marked as _legal_? Note,
TC0080-UA looks very similar (t=00:00.), however, it is indeed
_illegal_, as there is no such concept as npt-mmss. What do you think?
Am i misreading the spec? The trailing dot is indeed very confusing.
Could anyone clarify? Thanks!

Best,
Tom

[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases#TC0081-UA
[2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2326.txt

-- 
Thomas Steiner, Research Scientist, Google Inc.
http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 09:24:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 November 2011 09:24:39 GMT