- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:15:50 -0400
- To: Nicolas Krebs <nicolas1.krebs3@netcourrier.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
Hello Nicolas, I'm not sure what you mean by "an other way". Do you suggest that the syntax for media fragments should be similar to the syntax used by text/plain? If yes, then I'd like to understand the rational. Why consider text/plain fragments and not XPointer fragments for example? Thank you for raising the attention of this list to the proposed charter for media fragment btw, that's something I should have I thought of. Philippe On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 00:16 +0200, Nicolas Krebs wrote: > via > http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/04/proposed_activity_for_video_on.html > and http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-fragments-wg.html > > http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-fragments-wg.html > "The mission of the Media Fragments Working Group, part of the Video > on the Web Activity, is to address temporal and spatial media > fragments on the Web using Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)." > > Look like RFC 5147 > urn:ietf:rfc:5147 > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5147.txt > An other way of point and link to part of a web ressource via uri fragment > (i love this). > > See also > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fragment.html > http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2007/11/fragment-identi.html > http://dret.net/netdret/docs/wilde-ht2005-textfrag.pdf > http://www.bortzmeyer.org/5147.html > > > Comment: > I don't see the uri mailing list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/ > or "URI Activity" http://www.w3.org/Addressing/Activity > or the "URI Interest Group" http://www.w3.org/2001/12/URI/ > in the "Dependencies" section. Is this included in or infered by > "Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) [...] > This organisation is responsible for RFC 3986 (URI)" ? >
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 20:22:07 UTC