Re: ACTION-112: Digest of Conrad's vs Current's proposal for Media Fragment processing

Hi Yves,

>> --> We took a resolution regarding the syntax of the Range and 
>> Content-Range headers, see [5], but we haven't take any regarding the 
>> syntax of Accept-Ranges. Should we put here 'seconds'? Or rather 
>> 'time'? Or 'time:npt'?
> 
> We should reuse the exact same unit, in that case time:npt.

OK, thanks for the clarification. I have modified the RESOLUTION page 
accordingly: 
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/WG_Resolutions#Media_Fragment_Headers

>> * Summary:
>> . 1.1: NO new headers are necessary / normal use of Range request with 
>> 206 response code
>> . 1.2.a: This is fully similar to 1.1
>> . 1.2.b: The 'Fragment' and 'Content-Fragment' headers are introduced 
>> / 200 response code
>> . In all cases, the body of the response contains the binary data of 
>> the fragment
> 
> Issue is that you get multiple value for the same URI (which is OK), but 
> with no way to differentiate between them. There should be at least a 
> Content-Location with the explicit URI of this fragment as a complete 
> reource representation.

I don't understand this. Could you explain? In which situation (1.1 / 
1.2) we end up with multiple values for the same URI? What are these 
values? Could you write down the example with the Content-Location 
header in the response?

>> 2) Case 2: Resolving URI fragments in a proxy cachable manner
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> time ranges _are_ cacheable !

What is the main trigger then for going for 2 round-trips?

   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.eurecom.fr/~troncy/

Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 09:59:17 UTC