Re: Test cases: invalid syntax vs. invalid semantics

On 11 apr 2011, at 15:01, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:54:38 +0200, Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/04/2011 11:34, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:42:56 +0200, Davy Van Deursen
>>> <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2b) UA is not able to detect that the fragment is invalid
>>>> For example, #t=15,20 when the resource has a duration of 10s. When
>>>> the UA does not know the duration, it is not able to detect that this
>>>> fragment is invalid. What will the visual result be in this case? Note
>>>> also that it is possible in this case that the UA requests a temporal
>>>> range (i.e., Range: t:npt=15-20) which the server (for the moment)
>>>> will answer with a 416 ...

> I'd say that once the duration of the resource is known and the UA tries to apply the fragment, it tries to seek to the start offset. If that offset is greater than the duration, then clip to duration so that effectively it seeks to the end.


If I understand you correctly you say that #t=15,20 should behave as a seek to the end, if and only if the UA does not know the duration beforehand?

That seems a bit inconsistent: whether you get an error or a seek-to-end would depend on prior knowledge of the UA, which is hidden from the user.

Or do I misunderstand what you're trying to say?
--
Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman

Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 19:41:28 UTC