- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:43:44 +1000
- To: cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr
- Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 08:44:45 UTC
Hi Cecil, On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@enst.fr>wrote: > Hi Silvia, > > Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit : > >> but it >>> seems to me that the important questions are more technical: is this >>> scheme >>> good or not, is it too complex to implement or not, should it be profiled >>> or >>> not, extended or not ... >>> >> >> I agree, that is the key question. So, are you aware of any MPEG >> implementations that have implemented the fragment addressing schemes? >> > No. > > If not, that seems to me to be an indication of it being too complex. >> > I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. There may be other reasons. OK, fair enough. But would you think MPEG people would have a problem with using the newly defined schemes or would they defend (for whatever reason) the existing fragment addressing scheme for MPEG? If there are no implementations (for whatever reasons), I don't see much of an issue in introducing a new one - that's all. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 08:44:45 UTC