W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Media Fragments Working Group: Agenda 17 March, Telecon 1000 UTC

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:12:40 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831003161412r64febda7w7ab2b3383144813b@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Cc: Philip Jšgenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>, RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>, Erik Mannens <erik.mannens@ugent.be>
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:10 AM, RaphaŽl Troncy
<raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> wrote:
> Dear Philip,
>> I notice there's no action for fixing the ABNF after I removed the
>> mediasegment definition and all of the *segment definitions (those with
>> '=', ignoring the encoding of the name and value).
> Yes there is somehow ... it is part of ACTION-152 given to Yves,
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/152. I have
> updated the title which was indeed incomplete.
>> I'm not sure what the
>> fix is, but would really like to see this issue settled in a way that
>> everyone is happy with.
> Me too :-) That's why I suggested to make it the main topic of tomorrow's
> telecon. However, I just read the email from Yves sending regrets and
> telling us it will not be ready for tomorrow.
>> The problem: It's currently completely undefined at the URI level if
>> something is a valid media fragment or not. I think it should be
>> undefined at this level, but that we should add the constraints on the
>> name-value level. Other think differently, but we need to do it in some
>> way.
> Yes it will be defined. The idea is that we have the constraints we can
> express in the ABNF grammar and additional constraints that cannot be
> represented (or could be represented in ABNF but due to verbosity, we just
> provide a paragraph explaining these constraints). As an example, one could
> write the 13 cases of allowed combinations of dimensions in the URI, or just
> add a paragraph explaining what are the valid combinations.
>> I should be able to attend if this will be discussed (but I'd rather
>> discuss it per mail, as usual).
> Try to be on IRC at least during tomorrow's call. I'm not sure how much of
> that we would be able to discuss given the numerous regrets already sent ...

Might it make sense to move the meeting an hour back to the original
time for all of us? Seeing as nobody from the US is participating, we
have actually all been affected by a change of schedule.

Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2010 21:16:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:44 UTC