- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:05:37 +0100
- To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:28:05 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
I tried making the edit and it turns out RFC2326 is a bit quirky on the
HHMMSS format:
npt-hhmmss = npt-hh ":" npt-mm ":" npt-ss [ "." *DIGIT ]
npt-hh = 1*DIGIT ; any positive number
npt-mm = 1*2DIGIT ; 0-59
npt-ss = 1*2DIGIT ; 0-59
It allows 1-digit minute or second, which we currently do not. Do we
really want this?
--
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 28 January 2010 23:06:31 UTC