- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:17:45 +0200
- To: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>
- CC: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Dear Conrad, > there were some recent questions about discovery (how does a client > find out whether an HTTP segment response mechanism is available) and > fallback (what happens if either the client or server fails to > understand the mechanism). I've put together some thoughts here: > > http://blog.kfish.org/2009/04/discovery-and-fallback-for-media.html Another interesting blog post :-) ... though I disagree sometimes with what you say: You wrote: "I will make the case that the user-visible differences between the two syntaxes are immaterial, and that a more important distinction is that they induce different protocols.". For me, protocol = HTTP and there is no difference in protocol between the fragment or the query parameter. You wrote: "I will also claim that the use of the fragment syntax introduces unnecessary complexity in that it lacks a discovery mechanism and has no useful fallback to existing HTTP." This needs to be counter-balance. I don't see the extra-complexity, but I do see the benefit: the fragment has a natural filiation with its parent resource. The query creates a *new* resource. How will you specify back this relationship between the newly created resource and the original resource the part comes from? I don't see the answer in your blog post. The main criticism you have for the fragment, is the lack of a fallback plan if the server does not handle the fragment request. In other words, the whole resource will be send over the networks. Yes, but I don't see that as a major drawback, and we can be confident that the situation will naturally improve as soon as more and more web servers will handle media fragments. I then like your explanation of the solution we are designing within the group. Could we use this text in the WD? Ultimately, you wrote: "* To clarify within the Media Fragments WG how queries can be used effectively, for both considered user scenarios." The WG has plan for using the query parameter. It will mean that a new resource is created, extracted from an existing resource. We still need to specify how the link will be made. "* To consider how the byte-range redirection mechanism can be generalized for other segment specifiers, such as spatial regions." As the ISSUE-5 [1] raised by Jack shows, we are likely to have transcoding for the spatial cropping. Cheers. Raphaël [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/5 -- Raphaël Troncy CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093 Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312 Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 21:18:36 UTC