W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2010

[whatwg] media resources: addressing media fragments through URIs spec

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 23:19:00 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimb7yih4eaoFP50jJ-F8vtH2-FV40izcnzdEbS7@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 9:43 PM, timeless <timeless at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 5:26 AM, silviapfeiffer1
> <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It doesn't actually matter what element the URI appears in - your
>> element has to deal with the data that it receives and if
>> "file.ogv#t=1:00,1:15" is an Ogg Theora segment out of a video, then
>> that is what the <img> element receives.
>
> right.
>
>> I am
>> not aware though of any <img> element implementation that can deal
>> with Ogg Theora video.
>
> That's changeable. And you seem to be totally ignoring that this is
> the thrust of someone else's request.
>
> Note that I'm not the one asking for it. Just trying to explain it to
> you since you seem to be doing a good job of totally missing the
> point.


Same here. ;-)

Note that I do understand the need and am trying to explain how it can
be made to work. Also I am trying to show that what might look as the
simplest approach won't work and why.



>> If you are, however, asking to turn the Ogg Theora video into a APNG
>> or a animated GIF or even a MNG, there will need to be a transcoding
>> step at the server,
>
> No no.
>
> If a browser can decode a frame or sequence of frames from an ogg,
> then it can display them, and since it can display various image
> formats in <img> (jpg, gif, png, apng, potentially mng, and in future
> geckos SVG), then someone (not me!) is merely suggesting that ogg be
> another one, either as a single frame or an animated sequence.

All of the image formats that you are pointing out have an image mime
type. I am merely pointing out that to support ogg theora browsers
would need to support a video mime type in an <img> element. I don't
see that as the intention of the <img> element, in particular since
<img> elements do not have transport controls and the like. Otherwise,
why did we create a <video> element in the first place.

So, I am just pointing out that with current <img> element
implementations and with the existing intentions of <img> elements (as
opposed to <video> elements), using a segment of Ogg Theora video as
defined through a media fragment URI will not work as an image
resource and will also not work as a video resource.


Hope that clarifies it.

Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Sunday, 4 July 2010 06:19:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:24 UTC