Re: Resolving ISSUE-19

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
> I've now committed the first 3 patches from
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Dec/0035.html>,
> live at
> <http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/>.
>
> With this, I'm happy to close ISSUE-19
> <http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/issues/19> and won't
> object going to LC.
>
> ACTION-212 <http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/212>
> can now be closed.
>
> Note that I would also have liked to clean up unused productions as per my
> 4th patch, at least these productions are not referenced in the spec and
> could be removed:
>
> * trackparams

That is indeed useless as it is. I thought trackparams would be standing for
   trackparam *( ";" trackparam )
in which case it would be useful. But seeing as it's not particularly
necessary, I'm happy to remove it.



> * segment

This is necessary, because it is basically a change to RFC3986. It
states that instead of what is specified there, namely:
   segment = *pchar
we want to give it a more specific meaning, namely this:
   segment       = mediasegment / *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
which is more restrictive than that of RFC3986. So, I think this has to stay.


> * mediasegment
> * axissegment
> * timesegment
> * spacesegment
> * tracksegment
> * namesegment

These build the bridge between RFC3986 and our specification, so these
need to stay, too. In this way you can follow all the way from RFC3986
through segment through mediasegment down to each of the fragment
definitions we have.


Cheers,
Silvia.

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 00:01:12 UTC