W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Discovery and fallback for media segment addressing over HTTP

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 08:24:36 -0400 (EDT)
To: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>
cc: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904080821060.18162@ubzre.j3.bet>
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Conrad Parker wrote:

> 2009/4/8 RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>:
>> 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

I hate to comment on blog posts, but I noted this:

A recently proposed behaviour for handling media segments involves placing 
the segment specifier into the Range HTTP Request header, with a new units 
of seconds.

To retrieve the URI http://www.example.com/media.ogv#t=10:

GET /media.ogv?t=10 HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Range: seconds=10-

Why /media.ogv#t=10 has been translated to /media.ogv?t=10 ?

Your automagic resolving using X-Accept-Range-Redirect: bytes seems to 
imply that http://www.example.com/media.ogv?t=10 is roughly equivalent to 
http://www.example.com/media.ogv which is definitely not the case. You 
still need to locate the resolver in one way or another, but not by 
crafting a new URI based solely on the structure of the media URI.

Baroula que barouleras, au tiťu toujou t'entourneras.

Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 12:24:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:27:42 UTC