On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Bernhard Haslhofer < bernhard.haslhofer@univie.ac.at> wrote: > Silvia, > > for images we can definitely solve the rendering with SVG; for other media > types (e.g., videos) we could also define / reuse elements that define the > necessary semantics for expressing segment/fragment/region information. But > then we have two divergent developments: "the MF spec for addressing > fragments in media objects " (implemented by browsers) and some other "spec > for addressing fragments in media objects in the context of Web annotations" > (implemented by annotation clients running in browsers). > > I actually don't see that as a problem, because they have different goals: one is presentational the other is referential. I don't think you would share the URLs that you are using for the annotations in a single URL, since they actually require the annotations and everything to be delivered with them to mean anything, so a link to the full resource that has everything it in makes a lot more sense IMHO. Then, you could on top of that use a slicing MF URL to zoom into a particular region of the full resource to see the diverse annotations. As long as you are using SVG for providing annotations, I think you are following a standard and that is good enough. > If the MF spec proposes some solution (ref approach, SVG approach, > whatever) for addressing complex regions, we could build on that... > Why not just reference a SVG directly as the mask description - that's much better than a MF URL. After all, it's not about delivering fragments for your use case, but about delivering annotations on the full resource, IIUC. I think I'm almost convinced now that for that use case we don't actually need URLs - but feel free to explain to me why it would all need to be in a single URL. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Friday, 10 September 2010 10:56:31 UTC