Re: Segment production rule

Philip (cc-ing the whole group)

>> Philip,
>> In revision 1.72, you remove the *segment productions. Why?
>> Segment is the hat over fragment and query ... since we expect
>> ultimately to cover both and re-use some bits of syntax.
>> Why did you remove it?
> For the reasons stated in the email I sent:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:18:03 +0800, Philip Jšgenstedt
> <> wrote:
>> E.g. the timeprefix and timeparam syntaxes should be matched against
>> these
>> strings, *not* any part of the URI. The timesegment syntax is simply
>> removed as it (and all other foosegment productions) violates the
>> layering
>> of media fragments on top of name-value lists.
> The *segment productions simply make no sense if we layer media
> fragments on top of name-value lists, unless we have a way to express
> "any string that after percent-decoding and UTF-8-decoding is ...".

There is no violation. Wait that Yves introduces (again!) this 
production rule and you will see that there is no contradiction.
You miss the fact that we wanted a generic syntax that works for query 
and fragments.


RaphaŽl Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des CrÍtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: &
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200

Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 10:54:31 UTC