- From: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:57:32 +0900
- To: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr
- Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi, I've just reviewed that thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Mar/0061.html I was introducing a scenario in order to discuss why it's useful to have separate request mechanisms for both media-fragments and byte-ranges, so that it is possible to request a byte-range of (the response to a more complex media-fragment request). I don't think that it is worth introducing a use-case for this. Making things cacheable shouldn't be done by some new sub-section with a new mechanism; rather, the existing mechanisms should be designed to be inherently cacheable. Rather than introduce new use-cases, I think it would be more useful to document how a UA would handle partial downloads of media-fragments. (Please close ACTION-156) Conrad. 2010/5/20 Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>: > Dear Conrad, > > During the 5th F2F meeting in Ghent in March, you propose to add one more > use case to the "Use Cases and Requirements" document named "bandwidth > conservation use case". This has triggered your action > http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/156 > > We haven't heard about it since. What is the status? Is this something you > still want to do? Or should we drop this action? > Best regards. > > 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 Wednesday, 9 June 2010 03:58:14 UTC