- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:13:47 +1000
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi Michael, On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote: > > Silvia, > >> I was under the impression that both MPEG7 and MPEG21 registered the >> fragment syntax together with the MIME type, but obviously they >> didn't. > > Well, as I said, looking at the IANA registry I was not able to find an > indication for this. We should peradventure ping them and ask if they did > (in some non-standard way, dunno?) or does the WG think this might be > counter-productive and just open a can of worms? I think those specs may indeed be part of the MPEG7 and MPEG21 standard documents and an ISO document is just as much a standard as an IETF/IANA document. So, if you want to be complete, you may need to add these. >> Ogg/temporal URI only has an expired I-D for this. YouTube, >> Google and the other Web 2.0 sites that provide temporal media >> fragment addressing just simply provide it as a feature without >> registring it. > > Yes. Again, I was just looking at the paper-trail part. Obviously there are > formats out there that practically do so. This is now the second step and I > guess we have in the SOTA already a good overview whom to approach regarding > this. > > The only thing I'm saying here is essentially: from a *standardisation* > point of view (IANA, IETF, W3C) it *seems* we have no clashes so far. Yes, I was just supporting your statement. >> Also please note that RTP/RTSP, while specifying protocol methods for >> addressing time offsets, have left the URI syntax specification to the >> server, see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2326.txt (search for >> "fragment"). I have just added that information to >> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/State_of_the_Art . >> [Davy/Erik: you might want to add this to the WD]. > > No you find me confused a bit. RFC2326 is not referenced from the IANA > registry AFAIK. Would you mind adding a note to [1], if you think this > changes anything on the finding itself? That's because rtsp is a protocol and not a media type, so it won't be specified as part of a media type. Problem with the media types is that they were never meant to be protocol-specific. In any case, RTSP should not have a problem adapting our specs. Cheers, Silvia. > Cheers, > Michael > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/MediaTypeReview > > -- > Dr. Michael Hausenblas > DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute > National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan, > Galway, Ireland, Europe > Tel. +353 91 495730 > http://sw-app.org/about.html > http://webofdata.wordpress.com/ > > >> From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> >> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:56:39 +1000 >> To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> >> Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: Results of the media type review regarding fragment identifier >> (semantics) >> >> Interesting indeed. >> >> I was under the impression that both MPEG7 and MPEG21 registered the >> fragment syntax together with the MIME type, but obviously they >> didn't. Ogg/temporal URI only has an expired I-D for this. YouTube, >> Google and the other Web 2.0 sites that provide temporal media >> fragment addressing just simply provide it as a feature without >> registring it. >> >> Also please note that RTP/RTSP, while specifying protocol methods for >> addressing time offsets, have left the URI syntax specification to the >> server, see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2326.txt (search for >> "fragment"). I have just added that information to >> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/State_of_the_Art . >> [Davy/Erik: you might want to add this to the WD]. >> >> I agree that we should send letters to all the stakeholders that we >> have identified and encourage them to use the current specification >> under development, also encouraging them to give us feedback if they >> come across any issues. >> >> Cheers, >> Silvia. >> >> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Michael Hausenblas >> <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> As of my actions [1] and [2] regarding our ISSUE-3 I have now performed the >>> review of the IANA media types registry. The question was how many media >>> types in the audio-visual domain exist that define fragment identifiers and >>> if so, where potential clashes with our proposed syntax/semantics exist. >>> >>> Short answer: 0. >>> Long answer: see my write-up at the Wiki [3] >>> >>> I'm gonna close my actions now and move on with initiating the Test Cases. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Michael >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/42 >>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/47 >>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/MediaTypeReview >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas >>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute >>> National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan, >>> Galway, Ireland, Europe >>> Tel. +353 91 495730 >>> http://sw-app.org/about.html >>> http://webofdata.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> >>> > >
Received on Sunday, 19 April 2009 13:14:39 UTC