- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 00:47:50 +1000
- To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Raphaël Troncy<Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl> wrote: > Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit : >> >> We just need to be clear what we mean an even if we use "URL", we >> should probably explain at the beginning briefly what we mean by that. >> Also, we need to be consistent. > > I see no reason either to change terminology. > First, I observe we do *not* use the term URL in our document. Searching > for any occurrence of this term, you will find just one in the section > 8.3.2.1.1. (SMIL state of the art) which could be replaced. > We use the term URI as it is defined in RFC3986. The term URI doesn't seem to include relative references according to what I forwarded. So, the creation of web addresses such as "../test/video.ogv#t=12.50" is not covered when using the term URI. This was what triggered my email. Silvia.
Received on Saturday, 22 August 2009 14:48:54 UTC