- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:08:04 -0500 (EST)
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- cc: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> indeed interesting, but not directly related to fragments. But as the syntax
>> would be quite similar (as using # makes perfect sense there), we need to
>> accomodate that in our syntax.
>
> That begs the question: is an image extracted from a certain offset
> point not a fragment? It is indeed a different mime type, but I'd
> still call it a fragment.
It can be a fragment, if there is a good reason for that. You can also (in
the case of pictures extracted) have metadata in the picture pointing to
the original video.
Now what will be more useful in this case, define it as a full class URI,
or as a fragment URI?
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 10:08:14 UTC