Re: ACTION-247: Clarification on what will remain in the Media Fragments URI specification

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:43:22 +0100, Raphaël Troncy  
<raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> wrote:

> Hi Philip,
>
>>> The proposal I have made that currently seems to gather consensus:
>>> - A document named: "Media Fragments URI Basics" that will be closed
>>> to what is currently published at http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/
>>> with a few removal, namely:
>>> . Only two dimensions described for addressing fragment in a URI
>>> (impact on section 4): temporal and spatial
>>> . Only one unit to specify the temporal dimension: npt timecodes
>>
>> Which are the interoperable implementations of the spatial xywh syntax?
>
>  From the implementation report,  
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-impl/ there  
> is currently: meiafragment.js and Ninsuna.

Thanks, that is all I wished to know. (I had only seen the individual  
implementation reports and not this compiled one.)

>  From the minutes of today's telecon,  
> http://www.w3.org/2011/12/14-mediafrag-minutes.html#item02, we have  
> scribed that you have already questioned in the past the validity of  
> Thomas's implementation (as a polyphil) and therefore argued to not  
> count it.
> We have also said that this feature (#xywh) has triggered significant  
> interests from other communities (namely CSS and SVG) and has also other  
> implementations (although not tested yet), e.g. from Europeana, see [1]  
> and [2].
>
> Please let us know if you can live with this or not.
> Best regards.
>
>    Raphaël
>
> [1] http://dme.ait.ac.at/annotation/
> [2] http://yuma-js.github.com/index.html

This wasn't where I was going with my email, but I still do think it's  
stretching the process to allow this. However, I can live with it in the  
sense that I will neither object to nor support going to REC.

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 11:59:05 UTC