- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:51:36 +0100
- To: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
- CC: "public-media-fragment@w3.org" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>, Richard Wright-ARCHIVES <richard.wright@bbc.co.uk>
Dear all, Great discussion, thanks Werner for bringing the issue. Reading this whole thread, I feel we have partially answered some of the questions but ask many more: - The current spec mentions media with embedded time stamps [1] but we need to make sure that it is _also_ handled in the protocol section. In particular, should we make a switch ... case depending on if the fragments is specified in npt or smpte time codes. - What is the real duration of the media http://www.example.com/example.mp4, which has 10 seconds worth of video, with timestamps 01:00:00:00 through 01:00:10:00? 10 seconds or 1 hour and 10 seconds (Davy)? - In case of a media fragment Range request, what should be returned in the response header? Jack's preference is for no timestamps. Is the instance length optional or mandatory per the Content-Range header syntax? Should we raise another issue in the tracker? Raphaël [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/#processing-overview-interpretation -- Raphaël Troncy EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department 2229, route des Crêtes, 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.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 09:52:26 UTC