- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 08:24:36 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>
- cc: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Conrad Parker wrote: > 2009/4/8 Raphaël 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 tiéu toujou t'entourneras. ~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 12:24:46 UTC