- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:28:05 +1100
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:32:11 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:23:25 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer >>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#npttime >>>>> >>>>> This is what I mentioned in the teleconf. As it is, '0.' would not be a >>>>> valid production of npttime but it is a valid production of npt-sec >>>>> from >>>>> RTSP [1]. The same is true of '00:00:00.'. The difference is in digits >>>>> after >>>>> the decimal point. >>>> >>>> We currently have: >>>> >>>> npttime ::= ( 1*DIGIT [ "." 1*DIGIT ] [ timeunit ] ) | >>>> ( 1*DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT [ "." 1*DIGIT] ) >>>> >>>> which I think you are proposing to change to >>>> >>>> npttime ::= ( 1*DIGIT [ "." *DIGIT ] [ timeunit ] ) | >>>> ( 1*DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT [ "." *DIGIT] ) >>>> >>>> Correct? >>> >>> To be precise, I'm suggesting referring to the definition in RFC2326, noy >>> copying it. The effect is the same of course. >> >> Could do ... otoh if the RTP spec changes this, we are not >> dependent... and it's really short. > > RFCs can never change, but I have no objections to copying as long as there > is a (normative?) reference to RFC2326 for readers to follow. Yeah, that's right. I guess the only reason then is not to have to go and read another document. I'm happy to add a normative reference to RFC2326 and still leaven the two-liner in there. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 22:28:57 UTC