- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:32:00 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi Silvia, > 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. http://www.example.com/football.movie#t=10,20&action=track is NOT valid according to the ABNF syntax, i.e. the syntax does to allow to produce such a media fragment. I understand than Philip is arguing for more than just the ABNF grammar in the normative part for handling such cases in an interoperable way while I understand that Yves is stating that the ABNF syntax and a non-dummy implementation for parsing it will be enough. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department 2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France. e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 10:34:02 UTC