- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:21:20 +1100
- To: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>
- Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
Hi Davy, Thanks for fixing these! Looks good now! On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be> wrote: <..> >> 5.2.4: >> Should >> Content-Range: t:npt 10-20/59 >> be >> Content-Range-Mapping: t:npt 10-20/59 ? >> And should >> Content-Range-Mapping: t:npt 10-20/59 be >> Content-Range: t:npt 10-20/50 ? >> and should >> Content-Range-Mapping: bytes 0-2000/32000 be >> Content-Range: bytes 0-2000/59000 ? >> (Note both the change with -Mapping and the duration) > Correct regarding the duration. The reason that I swapped Content-Range and > Content-Range-Mapping was based on a suggestion by Yves. But honestly, I > currently don't see any reason to write it like that anymore, so agree with > your proposal to make it consistent with 5.2.2. But maybe Yves has a > different view? Well, we cannot use multiple byte ranges with the multipart/byteranges content-type with a Content-Range-Mapping header, so I believe this is the right way to do it. But let's wait what Yves says. :-) Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 08:22:12 UTC