Recapitulation of ma:format vs. ma:compression. from Joakim Söderberg on 2011-01-17 (public-media-annotation@w3.org from January 2011)

From: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:36:25 +0100
To: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <376A32D52DCEC845B630D7183D2271C20CEBC0106F@ESESSCMS0355.eemea.ericsson.se>

Hello,

Some advice on the mailing list suggested that the rfc4281 mime-type extensions should be in ma:format, and to delete ma:compression or use it for the case there are no codec parameters, and rename it to "ma:codecs".

However, the group consensus was that it's not a way forward, since extended mime-types are not widely in use. So I would say we are back where we started; with ma:format and ma:compression. Unless we want to rename ma:compression to ma:codec?

/Joakim

Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 07:36:56 UTC