- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:21:48 +1100
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > 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? I think you may be misreading this. npt-mm and npt-ss say "use one 2DIGIT", i.e. there are two digits always, IMO. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 00:22:40 UTC