On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl> wrote: > > On 8 sep 2010, at 02:51, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > > I have, however, a pretty big caveat with standardising this approach: > right now we are discussing with the browser vendors on how to present > spatial media fragment URIs. There is a preference to use them for splicing > pictures, i.e. for rendering only the referenced image or video region. > > > > I do not believe that matches your intentions here. IIUC your intentions > here are to only have a means to provide annotations to regions. I think > this is more of a "image map" type approach than an "image splicing" > approach - correct me if I'm wrong. > > We've got to be careful here: browser vendors tend to think that the whole > world revolves around the browser:-) A media fragment is basically nothing > more than a specification of a portion of a video (audio, image) resource, > and even though we give guidelines on how to present such a fragment in the > browser that doesn't mean it's the only application of media fragments. I > would assume that the Media Annotation folks couldn't care less about > presentation: they just want to be able to point at something inside the > video. > > Except: everyone wants to see their results in the browser. So, if the browser vendors agree to present a spatial media fragment URI as an image slice, then you can do as many annotations as you want with such a URI, it will never be presented as an image with highlights by the Web browser. So, as long as we are talking about a presentation in a Web browser, we are actually talking about the same application doing the same thing with the same URI. Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 12:32:19 UTC