- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 18:15:31 +0200
- To: Bernhard Haslhofer <bernhard.haslhofer@univie.ac.at>
- CC: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, public-media-fragment@w3.org, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Simon Rainer <Rainer.Simon@ait.ac.at>
Dear Bernhard, > Yes. As I understand, the MF specification is about *addressing* and > *retrieving subparts*. If we these aspects are tightly bound > together, I understand why it is not possible to include aspects like > complex segment identification in the MF spec. There are actually 3 dimensions: addressing (the URI syntax), retrieval (processing at the HTTP level) and rendering by the UA. As Silvia pointed out, the retrieval is not relevant for the spatial dimension. It seems that the browser vendors would like to have the rendering of the (spatial) fragment within the UA normatively specified. This does not mean that the HTML5 will ultimately do that, nor that the Media Fragments agree to specify that. See this as an ongoing discussion. > But the alternative would really be that the "media annotation folks" > create their own solution for *addressing* MF which is not > necessarily bound to the MF specification anymore. I personally agree that it would be better to have the same URI syntax. Best regards. 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, 8 September 2010 16:18:07 UTC