- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 18:59:23 +1000
- To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> wrote: > Hi Silvia, > >> However, assuming you meant >> http://www.example.com/football.movie#xywh=10,20,30,40&action=track , >> I would agree with the CSS approach. If I am a UA that doesn't know >> what to do with action=track, then I will ignore that part of the >> fragment's name-value pairs and only interpret the first part. If that >> results in giving a cropped video and nothing else, then that is fine. >> It is better than ignoring all the name-value pairs and downloading >> the full movie! > > I interpret this answer as a +1 for Philip case. Feel free to tell me if I'm > wrong. My reasoning: > - http://www.example.com/football.movie#xywh=10,20,30,40&action=track is > NOT a valid media fragment according to our ABNF syntax. Nothing is sent to > the server in case of a spatial fragment so let's take another example. > - http://www.example.com/football.movie#t=10,20&action=track is NOT a valid > media fragment according to our ABNF syntax. So there will no Range request > issued. The UA will simply get the whole resource ... and I understand this > is not what you would like to happen. So, now I am completely confused. I don't understand any more which case Philip is arguing and which Yves. I thought Yves argued that they are valid media fragments, while Yves that they are not. I personally believe they should be valid, since our discussion was always that we would ignore name-value parameters that the UA (or the server) doesn't understand. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 09:00:15 UTC