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

Re: Review of section 6

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:42:53 +0200
Message-ID: <49E3B1DD.5080808@cwi.nl>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Dear Silvia,

[I suspect Jack has already addressed some of these comments, but I made 
another run :-)]

> Section 6.1
> * Third paragraph: is missing an "a" in front of "list of name/value pairs"

nope, this is plural "... pairS"

> * Fourth paragraph: URL should be renamed to URI

done (though URL are also URI ;-)

> * List of four dimensions: time should be renamed to temporal, space
> to spatial and name to named


> Section 6.2.1
> * Last paragraph: an "l" is missing at the end of "original" in
> "origina media item"


> Section 6.4, First Editorial Note
> * should the definition of "reasonable" go into the "Side Conditions"
> section at the start?
> * should the requirement for "a/v sync" go into the "Side Conditions" section?
> * embedded timecodes should not be touched, IMHO

Good questions ! I think we need to have first some feedback so we can 
i) better structure this section and ii) see whether indeed we need to 
complete the side conditions section.

> Section 6.4
> * Third paragraph (not counting the Editorial note): missing a "to" in
> "this is up the context" -> "this is up to the context"


> * Last paragraph: The result of doing spatial clipping on a source
> media that has multiple video tracks  could be defined if a further
> selector only selects one video track. Also, we could define that the
> clipping is done on all video tracks the same way if no video track is
> selected.

I complete the note by:

"The result of doing spatial clipping on a source media that has 
multiple video tracks is undefined if no track selection is applied first."

So, generally speaking, it is undefined. We have rejected the idea of 
clipping on *all* video tracks during the last f2f meeting. Would we 
like to reopen this discussion? Are there some good cases for doing so?

> Section 6.4, Second Editorial Note
> * we should specify that if named addressing is used, all others are ignored

I added:
"Incompatible: if the named dimension is used, all the other dimensions 
are ignored."

> * we should specify that if multiple temporal or spatial or track
> parameters are used, only the first one is interpreted

Partially captured by the semantic error #1, slightly rephrased.

> * we should specify that any dimensions specified outside the media
> resource (e.g. end time after end of file, coordinates outside the
> frame) are to be clipped to the actual size of the resource

Partially captured by the semantic error #3 in the ed note, but I have 
completed it.

> * we should specify that unknown id or unknown track specifier are to
> result in no-op

Captured by the semantic error #2 in the ed note.

> * we should specify that non-sensical time specs or coordinates (e.g.
> t=20,10) result in no-op

Captured by the semantic error #4.
Thanks for the carreful reading.


RaphaŽl 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 Monday, 13 April 2009 21:43:42 UTC

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