- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 01:36:37 +0100
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- CC: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Dear Michael, > The problem is that with the pure syntax (as of [2]) we can't fully specify > any conformance (UA, or whatever). I see where the confusion might land ... The conformance will of course not be based purely on the media fragment syntax [1] but also (mainly?) on the to_be_written so-called "HTTP implementation" section [2]. Don't look at it, it not *yet* written (my fault, this is my action, and I'm working on it, apologies). So, this section will tell you what's going between the UA and the server, when a media fragment is requested over http. [snip] > Now, back to the question: How does the above described map to our work? > Take <http://www.example.com/movie.mov#xywh=20,20,40,40> as an example. > How would the TC look? How do we specify the semantics of it? The Test Case will ensure the media fragment is correctly encoded in new http headers, that the request will be adequately handle by the server, that the server will ultimately return a playable resource to the UA. There will be TC for the 2-ways and the 4-ways handshakes most likely. The TC will verify the headers, the response, etc (really, http level). I know, this sounds a bit abstract, but would hopefully be clearer once [2] is written, again my action ... Cheers! Raphaël [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Syntax [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/HTTP_implementation -- Raphaël Troncy CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093 Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312 Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 00:37:26 UTC