- From: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:29:58 +0100
- To: "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Cc: "'DENOUAL Franck'" <Franck.Denoual@crf.canon.fr>, <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On feb 18, 2010 at 11:53, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > Cc: Davy Van Deursen; DENOUAL Franck; public-media-fragment@w3.org > Subject: Re: Track fragments > > 2010/2/18 Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>: > >>> [1] > >>> > >>> > http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/ImplementationExperim > >>> ent#Segm > >>> ents_via_the_HTTP_Range_header > >> > >> Sorry, I should have known - have read those docs before. > >> Cool to see it implemented and working! > >> > >> I noticed one difference: As you used "time" instead of "t" on the > >> protocol level, we should adapt the spec to use that, too, IMO. > >> More readable anyway. > > > > Re [1] ... or the other way around :-) But let's first Yves complete > > his action 123, > > http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/123 > > Yup, we have a draft at > http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/WG_Resolutions#Media_Fr > a > gment_Headers > , but it's not yet in the spec. I do vote for the more readable "time" > than what is currently in the examples in the spec (which, > incidentally, I put there originally ;-). One reason to use 't' instead of 'time' might be to be consistent with the temporal fragment identifier (i.e., 't'). Best regards, Davy -- Davy Van Deursen Ghent University - IBBT Department of Electronics and Information Systems - Multimedia Lab URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be/dvdeurse
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 11:29:58 UTC