- From: Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:33:20 +0900
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
On 13 April 2011 21:51, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:58:04 +0200, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Apr 13, 2011, at 12:03 , Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >>> >>>> From todays teleconf. >>>> >>>> The question comes up in some test cases in >>>> <http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/ua-test-cases.html>. >>>> >>>> It it my experience that media not starting at time 0 is extremely rare, >>>> I've really only seen it in poorly remuxed MPEG-2 transport streams and >>>> similar. I would say that *if* a user agent supports media that doesn't >>>> start at 0, then we should clamp the request start to the start time when >>>> necessary. I don't think that we should make the start/end relative to the >>>> media start position, as that would be inconsistent. >>> >>> >>> Everyone seems to say "we don't want to support media that doesn't start >>> at t=0", but then my next question is: >>> >>> Assuming I have an item example.ogv starting at t=0. I now request >>> <http://example.com/example.ogv?t=10,20>. Does the resulting video stream >>> start at t=0 (i.e. has everything been recoded, if the underlying format has >>> embedded timestamps) or at t=10, or do we simply leave it >>> implementation-defined? >>> >>> And, of course, the next question is: what does >>> <http://example.com.ogv?t=10,20#t=5,15> show? seconds 5-10 of the original >>> media file? seconds 10-15 of the original media file? Something else? >>> >>> Note that these examples may actually occur in real life: it's easy enough >>> to envision an application that simply tacks #t=xxxx onto an existing URL to >>> show just a little bit of it. >> >> If it in a format that allows preserving the original time stamps and the UA >> understands it, then I'd say the result is seconds 10-15 of the original >> resource. However, I've been arguing in other venues (WHATWG/HTML WG) that >> browsers in particular shouldn't support non-zero start times and should >> instead normalize the time line to start at 0. In such an implementation, >> the result would be seconds 15-20 of the original resource. >> >> So, the result depends on how the UA interprets resources with non-zero >> start times, and that is still an unresolved issue. > > Ogg with Skeleton supports remembering its original start time, so it > is in theory possible to get the seconds 10-15 of the original > resource. However, I don't think I've seen it used anywhere other than > how our old annodex plugin for apache worked. even in that system, we interpreted ?t=10-15 as a view of the resource that starts playing from 10s in. It would make sense for a UI in that system to show a timeline from 0, with current play position at 10, and if the user clicked the timeline in the portion from 0-10 a new request would be sent. However I think that use-case is now covered by fragments. A fragment that shows a view of a stream is however a different use-case from Philip's original question, which was about the underlying original video file having a non-zero start time. I agree that we could just translate the underlying start time to 0. Conrad.
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 05:34:07 UTC