<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Aug 25, 2010, at 7:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br>There are recommendations for what to do with video in the browser. I can encourage the group to also make recommendations for what it means for images in the browser.<br>
<br>However, the use of Media Fragment URIs in applications in general really cannot be prescribed - what a video editor does with a media fragment URI is different to what a video playlist player does and again different to what it means in the browser and probably different again for <pick your random application here>. Not all applications display a timeline - not all applications allow interaction with the resource, some applications want to use the resource in context (i.e. with access to the rest of the resource), others don't. It is early times for Media Fragment URIs so some of these use cases will have to be experimented with before a good recommendation can be made.<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br></font></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>When different kinds of applications may need different behavior, one possible solution is for the spec to have different conformance classes. In this case, for the feature to be useful for Web content authors, it's pretty important for browsers to all do the same thing, even if other types of applications may behave differently.<br><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>I will take the desire to have a clear specification for what Web browsers are to do with Media Fragment URIs back into the Media Fragment WG. I believe Web browsers are a special and the most important use case for such URIs, so it makes sense to specify that clearly.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, definitely.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<br>It would, however, be good to have an indication where HTML would like to see it going. Would it be better for a media fragment URI for images such as <a href="http://example.com/picture.png#xywh=160,120,320,240" target="_blank">http://example.com/picture.png#xywh=160,120,320,240</a> to display the full image with the rectangle somehow highlighted (as is the case with fragment URIs to HTML pages), or would it be better to actually just display the specified region and hide the rest of the image (i.e. create a sprite)? What makes the most sense for images?</div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>It should crop to the selected region, i.e. create a sprite. This is a more generally useful behavior.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Maciej</div><div><br></div></body></html>