RE: Spec clarification (temporal addressing)

Thank you Davy,

Actually, I should have been more exhaustive since there is also one invalid temporal example remaining in section 4.2.1.1:
t=npt:120,
Another suggestion: why not considering the examples given in the spec into the UA test cases ? 
You have some "npttime" combinations that can be of interest for parsing tests; ex: t=npt:120,0:02:01.5 or t=0:02:00,121.5
--
    Franck.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Davy Van Deursen [mailto:davy.vandeursen@ugent.be]
> Sent: jeudi 9 juin 2011 11:49
> To: DENOUAL Franck
> Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Spec clarification (temporal addressing)
> 
> Franck,
> 
> On 8/06/2011 10:52, DENOUAL Franck wrote:
> > Dear media fragmenters,
> >
> > I have one comment on current MF URI specification draft:
> > In section 4.2.1 Temporal Dimension [1], you indicate that "t=10," (with comma at the
> end) leads to interval [10, end).
> > It seems that the ABNF grammar just below does not allow this since it is the whole
> pattern ["," npttime] that is optional in npttimedef definition.
> > Moreover in your test cases [2], you propose to consider "t=3," as invalid syntax.
> > I think there is a need for clarification here.
> I removed the "t=10," example from section 4.2.1, which is indeed an invalid fragment.
> 
> >
> > Another remark: the sentence "If a single number only is given, this is the begin time"
> is in contradiction with the example 3 lines below "t=,20" where the only given number
> corresponds to end time.
> > Suggestion for rephrasing: "If a single number only is given, this corresponds to the
> begin time except if it is preceded by a comma that would in this case indicate the end
> time".
> I changed this as well, thanks!
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Davy
> 
> --
> Davy Van Deursen
> 
> Ghent University - IBBT
> Department of Electronics and Information Systems - Multimedia Lab
> URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be/dvdeurse

Received on Thursday, 9 June 2011 10:10:36 UTC