- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 18:42:09 -0700
- To: "'Dave Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'Daniel R. Tobias'" <dan@tobias.name>, <uri-request@w3.org>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>, <Conrad.Parker@csiro.au>
> I like Sylvia's idea and concepts, but I agree, I have to be able to > know (client side) how to handle a URL before I even contact the > server. Indeed, I need to know what I (client) will interpret and > what I want the server to handle. It seems that the specification of > how fragments are handled should be owned by the protocol (rtsp, > http), not the MIME type, no? I don't think so. It's possible (although why one would want to do so isn't clear) to serve a SMIL document using rtsp. In that case, the fragment identifiers are still SMIL fragments, not 'rtsp' fragments. It may be that if you know the MIME type early in retrieval (via FTP, HTTP, RTSP or whatever), you can process the fragment identifiers early. However, the _meaning_ depends on the MIME type, even though the way you process it might vary depending on the protocol.
Received on Saturday, 26 April 2003 21:42:13 UTC