- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 22:57:22 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Hi Silvia, all, [That has again been discussed today on IRC, so I'm answering to this mainly for the record] > for media fragment URIs, the spec defines temporal specs as follows: t=npt:10,20 > but in the HTTP header examples, we have: t:npt=10,20 . Indeed, the syntax is different, but should not be seen as curious. Our rationale is to follow respectively the URI fragment syntax and the HTTP header syntax (e.g. a normal byte ranges request). There is no reason that the URI syntax should be the same than the header syntax. And there will be no code optimization anyway, since what can be written in a URI and what can be written in a header have different constraints (think about the %-encoded strings). Since there must be some re-writing that should happen anyway, we can make the header syntax very different that the URI syntax, as soon as we have a good reason to do so. Our 'good' reason is to align with the current syntax of the header :-) Cheers. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department 2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France. e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 20:58:59 UTC