- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:49:02 +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, > If that is the case, our spec is inconsistent. We have a section that states: > > "Note that a general URI fragment or query string specified on a media > resource may contain several field-value pairs. They are not > restricted to the ones specified here, since applications may want to > use additional other parameters to communicate further requests to > custom servers." And I remember that this is clearly what the group wants. > I was always under the impression that we had agreed that additional > name-value pairs are allowed and don't make the ones that we define > invalid. I was also under the impression that our ABNF allowed for > this. Indeed, and I step back since I overlook the ABNF syntax. - a mediasegment can ONLY be namesegment OR a axissegment (time, space, track) - BUT a segment can be a mediasegment OR a set of pchar I used to only look at the production rule of the mediasegment, thus my wrong interpretation. Therefore, our syntax clearly allows to have new name-value pairs. The fact that this bit of syntax is only specified in a non-normative appendix is still a problem. It should also be in the section 4.3.5. I don't see anymore what are the remaining problems posed by Philip and Yves. Please, could you please both clarify? 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 14:51:05 UTC