W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Implementation Report for mediafragments.js

From: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:05:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CALgRrL=aCvnq8oTPoGMtsio2WF+9=5eKqu859LqKrRmaQrwLbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>
Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>, Erik Mannens <erik.mannens@ugent.be>, yl2@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Hi Davy, all,

> First of all, I noticed a mismatch in the spec between [1] and [2]. In [1],
> npt-mmss is defined, while in [2], it is not. The group decided to make the
> hours optional (see also ACTION-191 [3]); hence the extension to RFC2326.
> However, this should be corrected in [2]. Note that in both cases
> (npt-hhmmss and npt-mmss), the trailing dot is allowed.
Thanks for the clarification. So we extend an RFC :-) Not sure this is
a good thing, but the group decided so in the past, so I will not
argue. The important point is that trailing dots are explicitly
allowed, so the parser should (and will) allow it.

> Knowing this, TC0080-UA and TC0081-UA should be marked as valid media
> fragments according to the spec (which is at least how I interpret it :)).
Yes. As legal as it gets :-)

> If no one objects, I can perform the changes (in both the spec and the test
> cases).
+1 for the proposed changes.

Best,
Tom

-- 
Thomas Steiner, Research Scientist, Google Inc.
http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 10:06:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:47 UTC