- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:00:05 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, David Singer wrote: > At 16:45 +0000 30/04/09, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, David Singer wrote: > > > > > > If the resource is 'seekable' then time is relevant, and I agree > > > that time should be a normal play time and run from 0 to duration. > > > > That wouldn't address the use case of files that were split with > > non-zero start times, though, where the author wants the original > > range to be the one visible in the UI. > > The complexity of edited files is only really dealt with by embedded > time-codes. A single segment is the beginning of a large can of worms; > what do you want to have happen when there are two segments played > consecutively? Following your logic, there would be a time-jump. Yeah I'm not really sure how to handle this case. (I imagine it could get even worse with multiple frames having the same timecode). I guess time is linearised starting from the first frame's timecode? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 10:00:05 UTC