- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:30:44 +0200
- To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:19:31 +0200, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > >> I would agree to this analysis: #foo=bar is not a valid MF >> *dimension*. It is, however, a valid media fragment URI, since a media >> fragment URI is given as a URI on a media resource that has a fragment >> specified and we specify fragment through name-value pairs. The > > You can only know it's a media resource when you dereference it. > http://www.example.com/map#lat=-16.5&long=-151.7 is a valid Media > Fragment, but it may be a fragment indicating a point in a map (for > example, it might even be something else). How is this relevant for unknown name-value pairs specifically? #t=10 could also be used on non-media resources [1]. A browser could simply not parse and handle the fragment component until after making sure that it's dealing with a whitelisted MIME type. (In practice I think that amounts to only considering MF when used together with <audio>, <video> or when directing the browser directly to a media resource.) [1] strictly speaking: resources with a MIME type that hasn't opted in to MF in its RFC -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 14:31:20 UTC