W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > March 2009

Re: ABNF for fragment syntax

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 22:08:53 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02830903040308i2e36a53fpbfc3e57560a9df9c@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:21 PM, RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl> wrote:
> Dear Silvia,
>> I would say that is really up to the container format to define. We
>> could recommend that there be a naming scheme such as video[0] ...
>> video[n] and audio[0] ... audio[n] to address multiple a/v tracks,
>> maybe even text[0] ... text[n]. But I don't think they make much sense
>> - it would be better the names chosen had some semantic meaning, such
>> as "video", "sign-language", "audio", "music", "speech",
>> "sound-effects", "audio annotations", "subtitles-en", subtitles-de",
>> "karaoke-en", "lyrics" etc.
>> †And .. yes, at some point somebody should have some standard names
>> for these - in particular for accessibility it would be nice to be
>> able to say through the protocol "I want no audio tracks, but video
>> and sign-language and all text tracks".
>> Maybe there is a scheme that we need to develop, where the codec type
>> is also part of the naming, e.g. video.sign-language,
>> audio.annotations, video.music etc. We haven't thought much about
>> structure for describing tracks yet.
>> What do people think?
> It may be beyond our charter, but I think it is definitively something that
> is worth to note, investigate if not bring a solution. Silvia, what about
> creating an issue in the tracker recording exactly your message?

Hmm, please do if you think it's worth it. I don't quite know how to
go about it.

Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 11:09:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:27:41 UTC