- From: Chris Double <chris.double@double.co.nz>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 18:17:30 +1200
- To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Parts of the definition of NPT temporal fragments in the spec looks like: npttimedef = [ deftimeformat ":"] ( npttime [ "," npttime ] ) / ( "," npttime ) npt-sec = 1*DIGIT [ "." *DIGIT ] npt-mmss = npt-mm ":" npt-ss [ "." *DIGIT] npttime = npt-sec / npt-mmss / npt-hhmmss Because the 'npt-sec' clause is the first item in the alternates amongst 'npttime', given a temporal fragment of '#t=20:10', I see that 'npt-sec' will successfully match, but 'npttimedef' will fail since a ':' instead of a ',' follows the first number. Is it expected that this will then backtrack to retry the 'npt-mmss' clause? I'm unfamiliar with how ABNF definitions in these specs tend to work and whether backtracking is the norm. If not, then 'npt-mmss' would never match? Should the alternate clauses be re-ordered to work around this or is this level of detail not usually worried about in these types of specs since the intent is obvious? Chris. -- http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 06:18:08 UTC