See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 07 July 2010
<foolip> the bridge just keeps hanging up on me
<foolip> UK and France
<foolip> ok, that worked
Approved minutes of past telecon
http://www.w3.org/2010/06/23-mediafrag-minutes.html
http://www.w3.org/2010/06/30-mediafrag-minutes.html
+1
<dvdeurse> +1
minutes accepted
<foolip> +1
This will be last telecon for this summer
Next telecon will be 25/08
<scribe> scribe: raphael
<scribe> scribenick: raphael
Discussion about parsing name values pairs
Philip: name values pairs unknown
should it be ignored ?
... and how we manage percent-decoding
<Yves> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Jul/0024.html
<Yves> axissegment = anysegment *( "&" anysegment )
Philip: my intention is to say that anysegment is timesegment, spacefragment, trackfragment, or unknown fragment
<Yves> http://www.example.com/foo.mov#foo=bar
Philip: but this does not work
either since there is the problem of percent decoding
... I'm fine with http://www.example.com/foo.mov#foo=bar
not be a media fragment
Yves: the issue is more if the t=
is percent encoded
... I suggest to do this first step normalization step, doing
at least percent-decoding of characters that are not delims,
sub-delims, and other non-safe characters.
Philip: problem of the + sign in
the timezone
... it seems to me very complex while what I propose seems
simpler
... the spec is currently contradictory
... since the grammar says that arbitrary name value pairs is
not valid
Raphael: how do you manage extensibility
Yves: do we really want
extensibility?
... I'm not sure it is desirable
Silvia: her position "I personally believe they should be valid, since our discussion was
always that we would ignore name-value parameters that the UA (or the
server) doesn't understand.
scribe: the example was: http://www.example.com/football.movie#t=10,20&action=track
Yves: I'm not for being completely open to extensibility
Philip: you speculate a lot on what people could add after the # but should we really care about this ?
Raphael: I notice clearly a disagreement in the group currently
Yves's position is that for any unknow name values pair, the entire fragment sould be ignored
scribe: which is not clearly the position of Philip, and I think not what Silvia is thinking too
Davy: I understand Yves'as argument about I'm also concerned by the lack of forward compatibility
Philip: the current syntax is too strong on my opinion, so I don't want to have it normative
Yves: it is to be on the safe side for me to forbid unknown name value pairs
Raphael: other problem is
%-decoding
... to we want to allow %-encode of t
Philip: yes, but then you're generic and don't need to treat track and id as special cases
<Yves> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt => 2.4. When to Encode or Decode
Yves: I suggest to add a
paragraph in section 4.1
... explaining a normalization step
<Yves> %74=10,20
<Yves> normlziation phase => t=10,20
<Yves> track=foo%3dbar
<Yves> normalization phase => track=foo%3dbar
<Yves> track foo%3dbar
<Yves> foo=bar
Philip: I don't see the value of this pre-process step
Yves: we first need to extract
the name value pairs
... before making the URI %-decoding step
Philip: we should first do
parsing of arbitrary name value pairs
... and then process those name value pairs
... we then interpret the unicode syntax that results of the
%-decoding of those pairs
<davy> +1 to Philip, this is also the way we parse fragments in our player
Yves: I agree that this is a way to do it ... but this will not be my way, I would implement it differently
close ACTION-182
<trackbot> ACTION-182 Include summary into wiki page closed
<foolip> raphael, I have to run for lunch, are we done discussing "my" issue?
yes foolip, until September where we will discuss the issue again
<foolip> ok, thanks all!
scribe: and before on the mailing list
Davy: I think we should save the whole media
Yves: save as the whole page ...
would mean to save the html, the css, and the media _fragment_
(only the bytes downloaded)
... save as the media would mean save the entire media file
Chris question: Is it expected that for every URL request with a fragment that matches
the syntax of media fragments that the user agent will attempt to send
the Range header?
YES
I'm going through http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Jun/0099.html
I will answer Chris