2009/11/11 Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Felix Sasaki > <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de> wrote: > > > > > > 2009/11/11 Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> > >> > >> Hi Felix, Werner, > >> > >> I don't quite follow the discussion. > >> > >> Let's say we look at the browser case. It will typically use some kind > >> of media framework to implement <video> and <audio> element support. > >> These support multiple formats. Each format may have different > >> metadata, but the media framework will implement access functions for > >> this metadata. > > > > Ah, OK. That point "the media framework will implement access functions > for > > this metadata" I was not sure about. There are some formats which we have > in > > scope (e.g. XMP), but which provide no platform-unspecific media > framework / > > access functions. How would you deal with these? > > > > In a Web Browser and for the <video> and <audio> element, these are > not relevant. > True indeed. Nevertheless I read our charter http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-annotations-wg.html that XMP is an important format to be supported as an outcome of this group. Anyway. at the end of the day the result (what format and what scenario in addition to browsers will be supported?) will just depend on who will make what implementation effort. > > In a media/metadata management system, you will likely have the data > in a DB already and your interface is mysql. Also, where the data is > in XML or other text format, writing an access function is really > trivial. It's the metadata that is inside digital binary files that > you need to be worried about. > Indeed. Best, Felix > > Cheers, > Silvia. > >
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 07:42:09 UTC