- From: Brendan Long <self@brendanlong.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:23:24 -0600
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <526AC52C.8000402@brendanlong.com>
On 10/22/2013 05:20 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> Would we need to specify the interface of the object that is returned?
> I.e. MPEG2TS returns a specific MPEG2TS object with an expected
> structure etc. ?
If we just expose the original data as binary, we might be able to avoid
standardizing anything new (but I'm not sure there's any reasonable way
to expose /part/ of an MPEG-TS stream). If we decide that exposing it as
JSON is reasonable, then we'd need to standardize the binary to JSON
transformation (which is looks like that WG is doing).
--------------050507060903010908020200
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/22/2013 05:20 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHp8n2=Cm5A+8N03+sRFFT7FjrxOwY5m6rdtnkcb7jOK_tm+wA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Would we need to specify the interface of the object
that is returned?
I.e. MPEG2TS returns a specific MPEG2TS object with an expected
structure etc. ?<br>
</blockquote>
If we just expose the original data as binary, we might be able to
avoid standardizing anything new (but I'm not sure there's any
reasonable way to expose <i>part</i> of an MPEG-TS stream). If we
decide that exposing it as JSON is reasonable, then we'd need to
standardize the binary to JSON transformation (which is looks like
that WG is doing).<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------050507060903010908020200--
Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 19:23:09 UTC