- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:36:09 +1000
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Jack Jansen wrote: > >> >> On 21 jun 2010, at 09:41, Yves Lafon wrote: >> >>> During last f2f, we discussed about the possibility to isolate common >>> part of the grammar between header syntax and URI syntax. >>> However the common part would be external definition and at most the time >>> part without the units, like 'frametime' or 'clocktime' (the unit in the >>> header needs a specific entry to avoid implied LWS). >>> >>> So it is worth doing? (Jack, any input?) >>> >>> (tracker this is about ACTION-174) >> >> There's the few "real" nonterminals you sketch, but also a couple that are >> really indirectly-defined terminals, such as timeprefix, trackprefix, >> trackparam, etc. >> >> It's not important, really: if you feel it isn't worth doing then let's >> forget about it. > > In fact > time-ranges-specifier = timeprefix ":" time-ranges-options > is wrong, it may become "t :ntp" or "t : ntp", because of implied LWS. > I will fix those to be "t:ntp" / ... And please use npt and not the network time protocol. ;) S.
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 22:37:02 UTC