W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Fw: Media Fragments / CSS / SVG issue

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:28:45 +1200
To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110630072845.GB5462@wok.mcc.id.au>
----- Forwarded message from Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> -----

From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:48:02 +0200
To: Hypertext CG <w3c-html-cg@w3.org>
CC: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>,
	Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Erik Mannens <erik.mannens@ugent.be>
Subject: Media Fragments / CSS / SVG issue
Organization: EURECOM
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4E097922.3090005@eurecom.fr>

Dear HCG,

Following some good comments from CSS and SVG implementers on the
Media Fragments mailing list, I have been asked to report the issue to
the Hypertext Coordination Group mailing list since this is clearly a
trans-working group issue for which we would like to get a broad
review.

Both SVG and CSS talks about the use of the fragment identifier in a URI:
  - CSS 3: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#url
  - SVG 1.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/struct.html#Overview and
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/linking.html#SVGFragmentIdentifiers

The background reading is the following 2 threads:
 * Boris's concerns about backwards compatibility of media fragments
with SVG, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2011May/0014.html

Our analysis is that SVGview has a XPointer like syntax while the
Media Fragment URI will always have an equal sign which means we don't
generate XML id and we believe that such a fragment cannot be
interpreted in different ways by 2 different processors

  * Fantasai's concerns about spatial media fragments on an image file
that might have multiple images of different sizes or no clearly
defined size, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2011May/0019.html

We are tempted to say that these cases are border cases, undefined for
media fragments (or let to be defined for MF 2.0 or something).

The WG would like to transition to CR asap and we wonder if the HCG
could perform a review of the Media Fragments specification,
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/ or
at least provide comments on the issues mentioned above.
Best regards.

  Raphaël

-- 
Raphaël Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/



----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 07:29:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 30 June 2011 07:29:26 GMT