W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > January 2011

RE: Recapitulation of ma:format vs. ma:compression.

From: Bailer, Werner <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:49:13 +0100
To: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD9846F872C7874BB4E0FDF2A61EF09F965BC8DD90@RZJC1EX.jr1.local>
Dear Joakim, all,

Thanks for the summary, I'd like to add two points here:
- We should recommend the use of RFC4281 whenever possible, but we cannot rely that they exist for a particular format.
- There is a second reason to keep ma:compression (or codec), which is to describe the encoding of a track rather than a complete file.

Best regards,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joakim Söderberg
> Sent: Montag, 17. Jänner 2011 08:36
> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Recapitulation of ma:format vs. ma:compression.
> 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 07:49:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:45 UTC