RE: Review of 'Use cases and requirements for Media Fragments", Working Draft, 30 April 2009

Dear Raphael,

I read the document and realised in section 6.2.1 that you are only
recommending NPT and Timecodes.  I think the new time representation format
from SMPTE using EditUnits (which I presented to you in Spain) is more
appropriate and less video centric. It is also more forward looking (in
particular for future HD uses) and gets rid of inevitable problems related
to e.g. timecode's drop frame.  Have you decided not to use it because it
was'nt clearly understood?

Of course, I have to rely on you to pass the message to the MAFG as I can't
post messages on the group reflector.

Regards,

Jean-Pierre


-----Original Message-----
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Raphaël Troncy
Sent: mardi, 18. août 2009 11:55
To: Media Annotation
Cc: Daniel Park; Joakim Söderberg
Subject: Review of 'Use cases and requirements for Media Fragments", Working
Draft, 30 April 2009

Dear Media Annotations folks,

We have discussed that a long time ago during our joint session at the 
Barcelona F2F meeting: we would be very happy to get a formal review of 
the following document by the Media Annotations WG:

   Use cases and requirements for Media Fragments
   W3C Working Draft 30 April 2009
   http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags-reqs/

I know you're resuming your weekly telecon from September 1st. Chairs, 
could you please put this item on the agenda and ask whether there are 1 
or 2 volunteers to review this document?
Thanks.
Best regards.

   Erik & Raphaël
   On behalf of the Media Fragments WG

-- 
Raphaël Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/

Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 10:13:41 UTC