Hello Nicolas, I'm not sure what you mean by "an other way". Do you suggest that the syntax for media fragments should be similar to the syntax used by text/plain? If yes, then I'd like to understand the rational. Why consider text/plain fragments and not XPointer fragments for example? Thank you for raising the attention of this list to the proposed charter for media fragment btw, that's something I should have I thought of. Philippe On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 00:16 +0200, Nicolas Krebs wrote: > via > http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/04/proposed_activity_for_video_on.html > and http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-fragments-wg.html > > http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-fragments-wg.html > "The mission of the Media Fragments Working Group, part of the Video > on the Web Activity, is to address temporal and spatial media > fragments on the Web using Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)." > > Look like RFC 5147 > urn:ietf:rfc:5147 > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5147.txt > An other way of point and link to part of a web ressource via uri fragment > (i love this). > > See also > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fragment.html > http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2007/11/fragment-identi.html > http://dret.net/netdret/docs/wilde-ht2005-textfrag.pdf > http://www.bortzmeyer.org/5147.html > > > Comment: > I don't see the uri mailing list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/ > or "URI Activity" http://www.w3.org/Addressing/Activity > or the "URI Interest Group" http://www.w3.org/2001/12/URI/ > in the "Dependencies" section. Is this included in or infered by > "Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) [...] > This organisation is responsible for RFC 3986 (URI)" ? >Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 20:22:07 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 April 2008 20:22:07 GMT