- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 21:52:39 +1000
- To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Cc: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>, Jeroen Wijering <jeroen@longtailvideo.com>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
2010/5/4 Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>: > Dear all, > > Le 04/05/2010 03:22, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit : >> >> Incidentally, reaching the HAVE_METADATA state will also be a >> precursor to some of the cases that the MF spec identifies, such as: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#processing-protocol-UA-mapped >> >> orhttp://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#processing-protocol-Server-mapped >> . Thus it's not unreasonable to deal with this condition for certain >> usage cases. > > Indeed! And I think we should write this explicitly in the spec as each time > I explained the work of the Media Fragments WG in a presentation, I get this > as a question. Who wants to edit the spec to mention this? 5.2.1 states: "This is the case typically where a user agent has already downloaded those parts of a media resource that allow it to do or guess the mapping, e.g. headers or a resource, or an index of a resource." If we want to stay independent of the HTML5 specification, this is an acceptable description of the condition, IMHO. If we want to use HTML5 as an example, we can certainly add the note on HAVE_METADATA. Raphael, I think no matter whether it is written in the spec or not, you will always get this questions, since it is a core issue to understand. ;-) Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2010 11:53:35 UTC