Re: ACTION-76 : Question if MPEG-21 Part 17 got registered on IANA as a media mime type for fragments

Dear Christian,

>   reference software shall validate the standard for which it has been 
> developed and can be used for conformance testing.
> 
> If a missing mime type registration is the (only) reason for developing 
> a new scheme, then this does not solve the problem. 

The reference software is indeed a nice contribution, thanks Christian 
for pointing this out. The missing type registration is by far not the 
(only) reason for developing a new scheme !

The main problem is that there are already various schemes. Some (such 
as MPEG-21 Part 17) aims to be a standard, but are not used in practice. 
Some others, such as the Google one, has no status but is widely used. 
Some other (such as temporalURI) was in the middle of a standardization 
process, has implementation and usage, but didn't go through the entire 
standardization process. etc.

The Media Fragments WG is chartered to clean this mess :-) One rationale 
is to find a scheme that is easy enough to get the attention of the 
developers and have a real impact on the web. Another rationale is to 
have a number of dimensions covered that can be justified by use cases. 
Our impression is that MPEG-21 Part 17 was often over-designed for the 
most simple use cases, thus preventing its adoption. At the same time, 
we want to be as much as possible compatible with already deployed 
solution. This is in this problem/solution space that the group is 
trying to operate ...
Best regards.

   Raphaël

-- 
Raphaël Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/

Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 15:19:24 UTC