- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:57:03 +1100
- To: Guillaume Olivrin <golivrin@meraka.org.za>
- Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
That's all good. I have not reverted anything, since that was obviously confusing. I have adapted the wording a bit that's all. Thanks, Silvia. On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Guillaume Olivrin <golivrin@meraka.org.za> wrote: > Hi Silvia, > > It was Raphael review of UCs that prompted me to remove references to > "primary" and "secondary" resources. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2008Nov/0044.html > > I removed only two instances of "secondary resource": > > 1. > ** Unique resource > WAS > We want to try to specify media fragments as a secondary resource for > the complete primary media resource. > -- > CURRENT > We want to specify media fragments as usable parts of a resource. One > media fragment therefore > * is not seen as a separate resource BUT it is uniquely addressable > * is not a "secondary resource" but a selective view of an entire > resource. > > > 2. > ** Parent Resource > WAS > We want to try to make it possible to access the primary resource (i.e. > the "context" of the fragment) through a simple change of the URI for > the secondary resource. > --- > CURRENT > We want to make it possible to access the entire resource as the > "context" of a fragment via a simple change of the URI. > This URI is a selective view of the resource provides a mechanism to > focus on a fragment whilst hinting at the wider media context in which > the fragment is included. > > > I also removed instances of "primary resource" where they occurred. > > Hope it helps you revert some of the changes. > > Regards, > Guillaume > > >
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 09:57:40 UTC