Re: ACTION-158: review the API document

Hi Felix, all,

Just to be clear: my remark about the Language property was not to 
advocate RFC4646 over other standards -- thanks to Felix for this 
comprehensive update, btw.

It was merely about *requiring* the use of a given standard rather than 
just *encouraging* it.

As for the choice of which standard, BCP 47 seems fine, indeed.

   pa

Le 09/10/2009 19:10, Felix Sasaki a écrit :
>>   - I suggest that Language is *required* to comply with RFC4646, or
>>    this will hinder interoperability.
>
> The successor of RFC 4646 has been approved recently, see
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646 . The best thing is to refer to BCP
> 47, that is the "latest link" version of "language tags" and "matching
> of language tags". See http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/bcp/bcp47.txt
>
> Requiring compliance with BCP 47 is fine, since language tags created
> under this RFCs "sequence" (1766, 3066, 4646, RFC 5646) are
> backward-compatible. E.g. an RFC 5646 language tag is an 1766 language
> tag - but not the other way round.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>     - is it ok that the unit for Duration is fixed to 'second'? Can all
>     used units be converted exactly to seconds? is a granularity of
>     seconds always sufficient for duration?
>     - is it ok for the bitrate to be a number? What about Variable Bit
>     Rate? Or would we raise NoValue in that case? (might be an option...
>     after all we dont seek exhaustiveness)
>     - it is not clearly explained what the 'context' of a rating is.
>
>     Typos and minor remarks:
>     - in the abstract *and* section 1: "provide developers an
>     convenient" -> "provide developers with a convenient"
>     - in the abstract "Media Ontology Core Properties" should link to
>     the ontology document
>     - in the secton about License, the interface of the return value is
>     not give,
>     - in the section about Compression, the given interface is FrameSize
>
>     I have other remarks, somehow deeper, but that shouldn't prevent us
>     from publishing the first draft, I think.
>
>       pa
>
>

Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 08:01:27 UTC