- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 14:55:01 +0900
- To: Myriam Amielh <myriam.amielh@cisra.canon.com.au>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
At 09:46 04/07/09 +1000, Myriam Amielh wrote: >Larry Masinter wrote: >>I'm not sure how the PDF fragment identifier syntax or the >>XML fragment identifier syntax have much to do with >>MPEG-21 fragment identifiers.... For application/pdf, there's >>one MIME type with one syntax. For XML resources, there >>are two MIME types (application/xml, text/xml), and then >>a recommendation for what future MIME types might do. >> >>I don't like the idea of having a sort-of-recommendation where >>multiple interpretations might apply. I wouldn't like that either. On the other hand, it makes sense to have fragment identifier syntax that may apply across media types if these types are similar enough to expect that the same contents might be served in these different media types. >>Without reviewing the MPEG-21 proposed scheme, I don't know >>whether to be concerned about verbosity, compatibility with >>fragment syntax, or compatibility with other addressing mechanisms >>(e.g., SMIL). >> >Well, I could send you the spec if you wish, just let me know... A summary of the actual proposal would be better, I guess. Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 01:55:19 UTC