- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:56:34 +0200
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- CC: public-media-fragment@w3.org
Dear all, I observe a clear consensus from everyone who has expressed an opinion for the option number 2 sketched by Philip. We will resolve this on today's telecon. > Sure, I could write some spec text. As an FYI, These are the options I see: > > 1. Just use the ABNF we have now and let parsing be completely separate > from it. > > 2. Define a name-value syntax and say that parsers should use that to > get name-value pairs (simple because it's equivalent to splitting on & > and =). Then say that a valid Media Fragment is one where all the names > and values match the dimensions and their corresponding syntax. > > I'll not go further into discussion about these spec-writing details, as > the purpose of this thread is to reach consensus on how parsing should > work, and thus what kind of extensibility we get. You might get another action today's following these suggestions :-) Thanks, ACTION-187 is done. 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, 29 September 2010 08:59:20 UTC