- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:10:55 +1100
- To: Chris Double <cdouble@mozilla.com>
- Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Chris Double <cdouble@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: >> >> Having read that thread, it seems to me that SMPTE should be treated as >> labels, not as something to be converted into a timecode. In other words, if >> the resource doesn't contain these SMPTE labels, then one can't use the >> format. I'd be happy with the spec saying as much and simply not supporting >> the syntax, as neither Ogg nor WebM can embed SMPTE timecodes. > > I'm inclined to agree. Interesting approach. That's certainly a valid way to approach it. Or we can be pragmatic and say that if you yourself know that your video has a certain framerate then you can pick the correct SMPTE timecode and you can address frame-accurately with that timecode. Any other SMPTE timecode will not give you more accuracy than a normal npt time. I'm myself critical about a need for such frame-accurate URI addressing, but that email thread proves there are people that think it's required. I do believe we can safely ignore it for now in implementations and wait to see the need. In all the years of doing Annodex, nobody every needed it. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2010 10:11:52 UTC