- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:15:30 +1000
- To: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
- Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
- Message-ID: <2c0e02830909101515i4e27111ej19c7c827f8dd56e5@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl> wrote: > > On 9 sep 2009, at 14:36, Yves Lafon wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Yves Lafon wrote: >> >> All, >>> I has two ideas for solving this one. >>> The first one is very straighforward and reuse the units we already >>> defined: >>> Range: npt=12:23.2s-13 >>> Range: smpte-30-drop=1:22:33-2:33:44 >>> >>> ie: Range: <timeformat> '=' <start time> - <end time> >>> >>> And the same logic for Content-Range: >>> >>> Content-Range: npt 12:22.5-13.01/25.1 >>> Content-Range: smpte-30-drop 1:22:33-2:33:44.1/4:00:00 >>> >>> ie: Content-Range: <timeformat> ' ' <real start time> '-' <real end time> >>> '/' <total duration> >>> >>> Note that the use of '=' and ' ' is aligned with the Byte range >>> definition. >>> >>> The other option would be to say that it's a time unit, and precise the >>> unit later: >>> >>> Range: time=npt:12:22.7-npt:13 >>> => >>> Content-Range: time=npt:12:22.5-npt:13.01/npt:25.1 >>> >>> This one has the advantage of being more flexible, but less robust to the >>> introduction of new units (as they can't be advertised using Accept-Ranges). >>> >> >> One of the issue for the first case is when smpte is used, as the >> beginning of the resource might not be zero. In that case, it would be hard >> to define the duration in the Content-Range: case. >> Jack, Davy, what's your opinion on this? >> > > > I'm in favor of the simple solution, i.e. > > Content-Range: smpte-30-drop 1:22:33-2:33:44.1/4:00:00 > > There seems to be little added value in allowing mixing of time formats > (everyone: please speak up if you think there is), and aside from the > Accept-Ranges advertisement it would break there's also the burden of more > difficult parsing. > I agree - I wouldn't mix time formats in one request - it's not something we do in the URL addressing either. We could take a different approach where we specify the type of addressing as well as the format, e.g. Content-Range: time:smpte-30-drop 1:22:33-2:33:44.1/4:00:00 (or just "t" instead of "time") and similarly Content-Range: time:npt 82:33-153:44.1/4:00:00 then the default could be just Content-Range: time 82:33-153:44.1/4:00:00 which implies npt (analogous to the URI specs). This works well for the other dimensions, too: Content-Range: xywh 160,120,320,240/4:00:00 Content-Range: xywh:pixel 160,120,320,240/4:00 Content-Range: xywh:percent 25,25,50,50/4:00 Content-Range: track 'video'/4:00 Content-Range: id 'chapter-1'/4:00 Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 22:16:32 UTC