- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 15:46:44 +1000
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:37 AM, David Singer <singer at apple.com> wrote: > At 8:29 ?+1000 8/04/09, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> ?> My mental analogy was HTML, where an acnhor takes you to that part of >> the >>> >>> ?page as a convenience, but nothing stops you from navigating away. ?And >>> in >>> ?the case where the UA optimizes for showing that section (by suitable >>> ?handshakes/translations with the server), again, it could present a UI >>> which >>> ?offers other times -- at the expense of more handshakes. >> >> Yes, I understand that analogy. But because video can be a very long >> resource, media fragment URIs cannot be restriced to client-side >> offsetting. Think e.g. about wanting the last 2 minutes out of a 5 >> hour discussion downloaded to your mobile phone. >> >> The media fragment WG decided that fragment addressing should be done >> with "#" and be able to just deliver the actual fragment. (BTW: this >> is in contrast to the temporal URIs that were specified for Annodex, >> where chopping happened in the UA for "#" ?and on the server for "?"). > > But there is a huge difference between > > a) the UA MUST optimize for the chosen fragment, and may/should offer the > rest of the resource to the user (at the possible expense of more network > traffic) > > and > > b) the UA MUST only offer the chosen fragment to the user, and optimize > network traffic and downloads for just that section, and MUST NOT allow > navigation outside the indicated range > > > Unfortunately, it does make a difference to the page author which of these > is talked about (and, lacking anything else, (a) is probably what is > expected). Navigation outside the indicated range could be done in several ways - it does not have to be through indicating the full length of the resource in the timeline. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 22:46:44 UTC