Re: ACTION-76 : Question if MPEG-21 Part 17 got registered on IANA as a media mime type for fragments

Dear Silva,
   reference software shall validate the standard for which it has  
been developed and can be used for conformance testing.

If a missing mime type registration is the (only) reason for  
developing a new scheme, then this does not solve the problem.

Best regards,
  -Christian

On Aug 26, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

> Hi Christian,
>
> I appreciate that there is a reference implementation, but as long  
> as there is no real-world application that is actually using it, the  
> reference implementation is not of much use.
>
> It has already been established that there seems to be no real-world  
> application that makes use of the scheme, which is what I was  
> referring to.
>
> My question was therefore referring to the next step: would anyone  
> object to the new scheme? Would you?
>
> I guess we cannot answer that for all MPEG participants before we  
> roll it out and wait to see if somebody objects. So far I have not  
> heard anyone speak up.
>
> Regards,
> Silvia.
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Christian Timmerer (ITEC) <christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at 
> > wrote:
>
> Dear Silvia,
>   reference software of MPEG-21 Part 17 is available at [1].
>
> Best regards,
>  -Christian
>
> [1] http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/ISO_IEC_21000-8_2008_Reference_Software/21000-17_FID/
>
> On Aug 26, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>