- From: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>
- Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 16:03:33 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On 3/05/2011 14:28, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Davy Van Deursen > <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be> wrote: >> Silvia, >> >> On 3/05/2011 13:28, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Davy Van Deursen >>> <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> another topic related to the test case discussions ... >>>> >>>> The issue is about the case where we have an invalid media fragment URI, >>>> but >>>> that invalidity is only detectable by the UA if it has information >>>> regarding >>>> the source media (see [1] in the spec). For example: media.webm#t=15 and >>>> the >>>> duration of media.webm is only 10s. >>>> >>>> Suppose we have a smart UA (i.e., scenario described in [2], only byte >>>> range >>>> requests are used). The smart UA is able to determine the duration of the >>>> media, interprets the media fragment URI, and seeks to the end of the >>>> media >>>> (as discussed in [3]). >>>> >>>> So far so good, but what happens when we have a UA using a media >>>> fragments-enabled server (i.e., scenario described in [4], where time >>>> ranges >>>> are used)? The UA does not know the duration of the source media. >>>> Therefore, >>>> it just sends an HTTP Range request to the server: >>>> >>>> GET media.webm HTTP/1.1 >>>> Range: t:npt=15- >>>> >>>> Since the requested time range is invalid, the server answers with a 416 >>>> (Requested Range Not Satisfiable), and the UA still doesn't have a clue >>>> about the duration of the media. >>> >>> >>> An intelligent server should inform the UA with every request about >>> the content duration, even if it is an error, shouldn't it? >> >> Ok, for this example, sending the content duration would work. But consider >> an example for the track dimension: media.webm#track=foo where foo does not >> exist in the source media. The behaviour in this case is to ignore the >> non-existing track fragment and thus playing the entire media resource. This >> means that after receiving a 416, the UA must request the entire resource >> ... > > Even then, shouldn't the server inform the UA of the available tracks > and the UA should then not re-do the retrieval action? No, not according to the current version of the spec (ABNF syntax for the content-range-mapping for tracks also confirms this [1]). The same holds for the id dimension. Best regards, Davy [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#contentrangemappingheaderdef
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 14:04:08 UTC