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

Re: Range syntax

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:07:39 +0200
Message-ID: <4AAA135B.7070200@cwi.nl>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
Hi Silvia,

> 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

Yes, but then it breaks the "bytes" scheme where no dimension is 
provided. What is the added value of adding the dimensions (time, xywh) 
other the units (npt, smpte, pixel)?

I like also the idea of having a clear mechanism to advert the wished 
units (rather than dimensions) using Accept-Ranges.

> 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

Assuming you haven't done any copy/paste errors in the above examples, 
do you mean that the instance length (the value on the right side of the 
'/') should always been the temporal duration of the whole media? It 
makes sense for id. For track, I guess it could be the duration of the 
selected track. For space, I really don't know ...


RaphaŽl Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des CrÍtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 09:08:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:27:43 UTC