- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 05:18:35 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:40:00 +0200, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl> wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking a bit about whether or not we should split the section
>> on HTTP implementation
>
> I would support splitting out or removing the HTTP section, on the basis that
> we do not intend to implement it. When/if we implement MF it will be
> client-side only, relying only on byte range requests.
You can also rely on cached resources, so all the client-side processing
of media fragments make sense to have on its own.
Also "recommending" multiple ways of doing the same thing (the different
recipes) is not a good recommendation as if people implement different
ones, you won't have interoperability.
So I'd rather split the section 5.2 a skeep it in another document that
will continue to evolve at its pace, as it is still in "exploratory
mode".
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 09:18:37 UTC