Re: Range syntax

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:03:27 +0200, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> 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).
>>
>>
> Not having read this thread and detail, can we please use the same format
> in URI fragments and HTTP headers? No one wants to write 2
> parsers/generators for the same thing.


I agree. That's why I made the proposal that I made. However, the separators
may need to be different on URIs to HTTP headers, simply because that's how
they are defined in their respective standards.

Cheers,
Silvia.