W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Media typing of fragments

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:01:39 -0400
Message-ID: <4FB11043.6030309@arcanedomain.com>
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
CC: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>


On 5/14/2012 8:41 AM, Yves Lafon wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2012, Robin Berjon wrote:
>
>>> Certainly that first paragraph is paraphrasing RFC 3986, not providing a
>>> narrowed view relating to media fragments. So, if what's intended is the
>>> narrower reading you suggest, I think it needs to be worded much more
>>> clearly. In context, it appears to be a tutorial on Web architecture, as
>>> the first paragraph seems to be in any case.
>>
>> I don't think that it is intended as a tutorial on Web architecture
>> (which would be a strange thing to include there), rather I think that
>> they are explaining how one chooses between the two large options they
>> standardise to access media fragments. It is built on existing
>> architecture but does not (re)define it.
>
> It is definitely not a clarification of the URI spec, but as Robin pointed
> out, something relative to media fragments only (and in that case to video
> media fragments). It is still time to request a clarification to the WG, as
> some other clarifications/editorial changes were made in the PR phase (and
> even a bit after).

On my "to do" list, hopefully for today, but things keep coming up. I think 
the nature of the concern is clear, I.e. that the current wording is 
ambiguous and can be read (as I did) as restating incorrectly the general 
rules from RFC 3986. If anyone involved wants to pass that comment on 
informally, I will try and make it formally within the next day or two. I hope.

Noah
Received on Monday, 14 May 2012 14:00:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 May 2012 14:00:41 GMT