- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:34:36 +1000
- To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi all, This is to address my ACTIONs 94, 97, and 98: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/94 http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/97 http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/98 1. I have updated the wiki with the syntax specification for the wall-clock time: see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Dimensions 2. I have updated the Requirements document and added 2 use cases about streaming: see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/overview.html#scenario2.5 and http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/overview.html#scenario2.6 3. I have updated the Specifications document with the following: * formatting consistency * added a section on query vs fragment * added a section on wall-clock time specification * added the ABNF for wall-clock time 4. I have sent an email reply re editUnit: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Aug/0029.html 5. I have updated the wiki with a sentence on the editUnit discussion: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Discussion Cheers, Silvia. On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > Something else that I totally forgot to mention: we need to add an > absolute time specification that contains day and year to our > specifications, similar to what RTSP does: > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2326.txt (section 3.7). > > Cheers, > Silvia. > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Silvia > Pfeiffer<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I have had some discussions with a company that provides live >> streaming solutions about our media fragment addressing approaches. >> They are keen to make use of the specification for certain use cases >> that they are after. >> >> >> 1. A first use case that was provided is the following: >> A URL to a live video stream may look as follows >> http://www.example.com/video.ogv . It always points to the live data, >> i.e. what is transferred "now". This maps to a current clock time, >> e.g. http://www.example.com/video.ogv?t=clock:20090726T112401Z. So, if >> we require to point 5 min back into the past, the user agent can >> easily compute this backwards to e.g. >> http://www.example.com/video.ogv?t=clock:20090726T111901Z. >> >> I think for this we may need to add to the use cases and requirements >> that we are also considering live streams. And we should add this >> particular case of pointing back 5min in time on a live stream to the >> "Browsing and Bookmarking" section, >> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#uc2. >> What do people think? >> >> >> 2. Another example use case that was provided is the following: >> "Let’s say you want to make an interactive Formula1 website for a live >> race, the real-time commentary page links text fragments to timeframes >> - readers can click on the text ‘Alonso accident’ and the stream they >> are watching can jump back to the accident." >> >> I think we can attribute that use case to the named anchors: >> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#scenario4.3 >> >> Since this is a use case for live streaming rather than "canned" >> content, I would suggest we add it to the section. Is that ok with >> everybody? >> >> >> Best Regards, >> Silvia. >> >
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2009 03:35:31 UTC