- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:00:08 +0900
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'Lisa Dusseault'" <lisa@osafoundation.org>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
At 18:44 08/08/27, Yves Lafon wrote: > >On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Martin Duerst wrote: > >> >> At 18:48 08/08/08, Larry Masinter wrote: >>> On the other hand, I don't understand the reasons that the >>> JPEG 2000 committee rejected using HTTP range retrieval for >>> the J2 protocol, instead adopting query parameters in the URLs. >>> In this case, the range retrieval might look like it was >>> media independent even though J2 defined it specifically for >>> JPEG 2000 encoded images. >> I have no clue, but it could be that one argument for not using >> ranges is that you cannot expose them in an URI. This means that >> instead of sending your colleague a mail saying "Look at this >> interesting snippet: [URI here]" you have to say "Look at this >> video [URI here], the interesting stuff is at xx:yy:zz into the >> video". > >Well, when fragments are used to identify part of an HTML document, the fragment is not sent at the HTTP level, although in the case of HTML the whole document is always fetched, but in the case of pictures or video, being able to access a part of the image using ranges derived form the URI instead of dowloading the whole document before finding the fragment would be far more efficient (like accessing XMP fragment inside a picture, 10s out of a 1h movie in fullHD). Yves, you are talking about fragment ids, which have the disadvantages you mention, but Larry says they are using query parts, which are sent to the server. Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 11:16:19 UTC