- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:06:10 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Dear Jack, Silvia, > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl> wrote: >> There's another issue I ran into while implementing. I seem to remember that >> we've discussed it, but I'm not sure I remember the outcome of the >> discussion correctly. So here goes. Please let me know whether the following >> statement is correct. >> If the original media starts at a timecode that is not zero, we still treat >> it as such for addressing. In other words, if the first frame of a video has >> timecode=10.0s and we request a clip with t=5, the first frame we receive >> will be 5 seconds into the clip, and hence have timecode=15.0s. >> Correct, so far? > > Yes and no. We said it would be up to the user agent to decide what > makes sense for itself. So, if you want to deal with the full context, > you do what you describe. More precisely, the issue you are referring to is the ISSUE-1, http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/1 occurring when combining media fragment URI with other time-clipping methods. We have resolved this issue as Silvia pointed out, and the text is available at: http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax#Discussion Cheers. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093 Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312 Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 21:13:10 UTC