Re: Implementation Report for mediafragments.js

Thomas,

On 17/11/2011 10:23, Thomas Steiner wrote:
> 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!

First of all, I noticed a mismatch in the spec between [1] and [2]. In 
[1], npt-mmss is defined, while in [2], it is not. The group decided to 
make the hours optional (see also ACTION-191 [3]); hence the extension 
to RFC2326. However, this should be corrected in [2]. Note that in both 
cases (npt-hhmmss and npt-mmss), the trailing dot is allowed.

Knowing this, TC0080-UA and TC0081-UA should be marked as valid media 
fragments according to the spec (which is at least how I interpret it :)).

If no one objects, I can perform the changes (in both the spec and the 
test cases).

Best regards,

Davy

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#npt-time
[2] 
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#collected-syntax-uri
[3] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/191

-- 
Davy Van Deursen

Ghent University - IBBT
Department of Electronics and Information Systems - Multimedia Lab
URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be/dvdeurse

Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 09:52:22 UTC