[whatwg] <video>/<audio> feedback

[Conrad Parker]

2009/5/8 Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:04 AM, David Singer <singer at apple.com> wrote:
>> At 8:39  +0200 5/05/09, KÞi”tof Îelechovski wrote:
>>>
>>> If the author wants to show only a sample of a resource and not the full
>>> resource, I think she does it on purpose.  It is not clear why it is vital
>>> for the viewer to have an _obvious_ way to view the whole resource
>>> instead;
>>> if it were the case, the author would provide for this.
>>> IMHO,
>>> Chris
>>
>> It depends critically on what you think the semantics of the fragment are.
>>  In HTML (the best analogy I can think of), the web page is not trimmed or
>> edited in any way -- you are merely directed to one section of it.
>
> There are critical differences between HTML and video, such that this
> analogy has never worked well.
>
>
>> I am also aware that browsers that don't implement fragments will also show
>> the whole resource;  so authors can't rely on he trimming.
>
> This is not a standardisation problem, but an adoption problem. In a
> transition phase there may be user agents that cannot deal with
> fragments, but ultimately that will not be the case any more.
>
>
>> Given both of these, I tend towards using # as a focus of attention;  if
>> trimming is desired, the server should probably do it (maybe using ?).
>
> Just making sure I understand your suggestion correctly: I assume you
> are saying that both # and ? would be able to only deliver the data
> fragment that relates to the given specified temporal fragment, but
> you are suggesting that by using "#" the user agent is being told to
> present the context, while by using "?" the user agent would focus
> attention on the fragment only. Is that what you're saying or am I
> misunderstanding?
>
> I'm asking because that has not been the consensus in the media
> fragments WG as of today and if there is a discussion to be had, we
> should take this back to the mf WG. It is an interesting view and has
> actual technical implications - e.g. "#" could deliver the raw data
> without requiring an adapted container since it could be assumed that
> the core decoding environment is already set up - an adapted container
> is however required in the "?" case since the "?" creates a new
> resource.

by an "adapted container" do you mean something like Ogg Skeleton, ie.
a video container that records the desired in/out points?

I agree with David's suggestion, as I understand it in the context of
HTML5: the UA may present the context of media segments that use '#'
and '?' syntax differently.

However I don't think this should change how we do data transport (ie.
the HTTP and the media container). I'd suggest that the scope that
should be covered in HTML5 is to suggest how much seek bar should be
displayed for the video. However when the user navigates on that seek
bar (by clicking on a random position), the UA may use whatever means
are appropriate for the media type [as suggested by the media
fragments wg] in order to retrieve that data.

Conrad.