- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:30:41 -0500 (EST)
- To: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
- cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Jack Jansen wrote: >> Of course a blind proxy won't be able to do anything with it, but that's >> not the point. It should know that it's a video, how to navigate from frame >> to frame, align and merge, then recreate a container around the compressed >> content (as well as being able to act as a first class server when a client >> request a time range between the cached time range). No byte offset >> involved there. >> >> Now if you want to have, on top of time ranges, the possibility of using >> byte ranges as well, then ok, you need to pass the information along, but >> it means you are starting to mix apples and oranges. > > Ok. You're making two extra assumptions (at least, they seem to be implied in > this message): > 1. The original media server will modify the time range parameter to match > the actual data returned. It MUST return the _actual_ range returned, be it 4.95833333 to 10. Otherwise it's like asking for byte range 12-42 and returning 10-50 without even saying so. In the case of bytes it's easy to return the _exact_ range, in video, it is more difficult (or impossible, unless aligned to frames). > 2. Time is a half-open interval, i.e. from 1s to 2s means [1s..2s). Or, in > normal english, the frame for 1s is included, the frame for 2s is excluded. > > I think this could work. > > But we're still left with another issue: that of the initial data (the > header). To be able to forestall the extra trip to the original media server, > this data would have to be cached too. This requires that this data is > completely independent of whatever time range is requested. Is this true, for > the formats we know? Well, the server should reply with a playable video, including the video headers, when merging, I expect the cache to strip those headers before assembling. The trick of serving the header in a separate exchange looks more like a (needed) hack. -- Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras. ~~Yves
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2008 13:30:52 UTC