- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:17:49 +0100
- To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Media Fragment" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:59:59 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> >> wrote: >>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:21:34 +0100, Raphaël Troncy >>> <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Silvia, >>>> >>>> Thanks for this very valuable report from FOMS. >>>> >>>>> After it was understood what the spec is about, it was suggested we >>>>> split out those sections that are already stable and move those that >>>>> are still in the works into a draft for later release. Thus, we can >>>>> create a first, simple "versions" that can be implemented in full >>>>> right now. >>>> >>>> I understand the need for the developers to be informed of what is >>>> stable >>>> in a evolving spec and what is not, but I'm not a big fan of splitting >>>> documents. Our charter tells what the 1.0 version should cover. I >>>> would >>>> rather suggest we mark explicitly in our document the sections that we >>>> consider are stable giving a clear 'go' to web developers to start >>>> implement >>>> them and mark as unstable the sections we are actively working on. >>> >>> I think this is a good idea, it's approximately how HTML5 handles the >>> issue >>> of sections with different maturity levels in the same spec. >> >> I'm happy with this, too. > > In the meeting today I suggested that in the next meeting we get the > section that I think we all agree on (section 5.2.1 > http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#processing-protocol-UA-mapped > and everything that it includes) into a shape such that we can mark it > as "finished and read for implementation". Then we can hand this on to > browser developers (in particular Opera and Firefox) for > implementation. > > Philip mentioned one outstanding issue, which has to do with time spec > and he will raise it on mailing list so we can resolve it by next > week. > > Further then: prepare your arguments for next week's meeting if you > don't think 5.2.1 is ready. :-) I don't think this section is ready, but encouraging experimental implementations and soliciting feedback is one of the best ways to make it better. As far as I can see the syntax for the new HTTP headers isn't defined anywhere. We would also need processing rules for how a client should generate the output (perhaps just "must be a valid production of the foo syntax") and how the server is to interpret them (hooking into and probably tweaking the processing sections I added). -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 11:18:23 UTC