- From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:33:50 +0100
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Media Fragment" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On 1-Mar-2010, at 03:20 , Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 05:52:06 +0800, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl> > wrote: > >> I think we need to prioritize our needs, and then based on that >> prioritization decide whether to include quotes for id/track, when >> to do percent decoding, etc. >> >> Here's a list of issues that I can come up with (unprioritized): >> >> a. The MF syntax for queries and fragments should be identical >> b. The MF syntax should be unambiguous >> c. The MF syntax should allow any UTF-8 character in track or id >> names >> d. The MF syntax should adhere to applicable formal standards >> e. The MF syntax should adhere to de-facto usage of queries and >> fragments >> f. The MF syntax should be as concise as possible, with no unneeded >> grammatical fluff >> >> Are there any issues I miss? >> >> I think my current prioritizing would have b/c/d highest priority, >> then a, then e, then f. > > I'm not sure what priority order I would make (maybe b-a-d-c-e-f), > but think we only need to discuss it if we actually disagree on some > concrete issue. Fine with me. -- Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 21:34:39 UTC