- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:38:49 +1100
- To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Cc: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>, DENOUAL Franck <Franck.Denoual@crf.canon.fr>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
2010/2/18 Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>: >>> Why do you use 'tracks' instead of 'track'? >>> What prevent you to use: #track='track1'&track='track2'? >> >> Because that might not be compliant to our grammar :-)? > > Well, we don't consider 'tracks' with an 's' either in the grammar :-) > > We have discussed in today's telecon that we would not like to allow > something like: <uri>#t=30,90&t=10,15. More generally, we don't want that > the time or the space dimension is specified more than once in the fragment > because we don't want to bother trying to understand what does it mean. The > question remains for the track dimension, since it is reasonable to restrict > a media file to a number of tracks. > > I see (at least) two points to resolve: > - What are the changes we need to make (if any) in the grammar to allow a > selection of multiple tracks in a fragment? Silvia has proposed: > #track="audio(audesc,en);video(main,en);text(cc,en);text(sub,fr)" ... a > semi-colon separator Nah, replace the semicolon with a comma - we haven't got the comma as a separator in our spec. Also, it's not a proposal - it's a brainstorm for how to do "standard" track naming in a sensible manner. It may not be sensible at all. > - What is the semantics of the fragment when one or multiple tracks is > specified in a fragment? Does it mean *only* the tracks selected explicitly > in the fragment? In other words: #track="audio(audesc,en);text(sub,fr);" > will not contain video but just an audio and subtitle tracks? Franck suggested an additional marker for "includes" and "excludes". Interesting idea... Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 23:39:41 UTC