ACTION 192 and 195

Dear Davy,

> Regrets for this phone conf, I will be in a project meeting.
> Regarding my open actions (192 and 195), I completed these during
> the F2F at TPAC so you can close them.

Regarding the ACTION-192 "update the specification to state what the 
processing should do when media fragments request (time dimension) does 
not match exactly how the media item has been encoded "
... I cannot find the text that clarifies this in the section 5 or 5.2. 
Where did you put it?

Regarding the ACTION-195 "add a paragraph in the section 7.1 to specify 
that video, audio, img or any href is all treated similarly (range 
request issued when facing a media fragment)"
... I can read the following paragraph in the section 7.1:

"If the UA follows the scenario specified in section 5.1.2 Server mapped 
byte ranges, then it is recommended that when a media fragment 
identifier is detected in a URI (independent of the underlying MIME-type 
of the resource behind the URI), a RANGE request is sent to the server. 
If the MIME-type turns out to be a media type, the server will interpret 
the RANGE request as specified in section 5.1.2 Server mapped byte 
ranges, otherwise it will just ignore the RANGE header."

Should we first say that this media fragments URI must happen in a 
specific context, i.e. within a <audio> or <video> element and *only* 
for the time dimension in order to trigger this so-called optimistic 
processing of media fragments?
I also observe this is a contentious issue, and we will need to see if 
browsers want to implement this. This is also related to ACTION-197.
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.eurecom.fr/~troncy/

Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 10:00:04 UTC