- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:53:34 -0400
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 08:05 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > This is actually a problem for all media types. We have addressed this > is the following section: > http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/#standardisation-URI-fragments I had missed the sentence, "As such, the intention of this document is to propose a specification to all media type owners" and your response resolves that part of my comment, thank you! [...] > Both of Liam's proposals add a new parameter, [...] > > If xywh was used together with xySwh to achieve some backwards > compatibility, It was not clear to me how to do that. What would the syntax look like exactly? I was assuming people would use xySwh _instead_ of xywh when they wanted to add an "S" parameter to an isotropic/linear transform. Note, I'm not asking or a normative change in the spec (not likely given its status) but a note to explain how one adds a parameter in such a case. The example in the spec, http://www.example.com/example.ogv#track=audio&t=10,20 does help, but only when the parameters are orthogonal. By the way, the text [[ "&" is the only primary separator for name-value pairs, but some server-side languages also treat ";" as a separator. ]] suggests to me that implementations are encouraged to accept ; as a secondary separator. This is a good thing for the same reason that using ; between URI query parameters is better than using & in some cases. If I want to scale an image by 50% then xywh has a problem, I need to use xy, then scale, then use wh. But, maybe it's enough for now. Thank you for your responses; my concerns are satisfied enough that I do not have any objection to the spec moving forward, thank you. Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 01:57:30 UTC