plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

Dan Connolly
In
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/#standardisation-terminology

I see:

"This essentially means that only media type definitions (as registered
through the process defined in RFC 4288) are able to introduce a
standard structure on URI fragments for that mime type."

so far so good; then...

"The Media Fragment WG has no authority to update registries of all
targeted media types. ... We recommend media type owners to harmonize
their existing schemes with the ones proposed in this document and
update or add the fragment semantics specification to their media type
registration."

Is there a plan to get that recommendation implemented? It doesn't
seem responsible for W3C to Recommend the media fragments spec
without some plan in place to get the IETF/IANA registrations
updated.

I suggest
 (a) getting one or more IETF area directors to agree
  to get the registrations updated
 (b) making CR exit contingent on one or two of
  the registrations getting updated

The WG schedule currently has a fairly short CR period
  http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/

That makes a certain amount of sense given that I see
fairly detailed discussion of test cases already.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Apr/thread.html#msg7

So if plans are not already underway to get the
registrations updated, I suggest getting started soon.


--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

Silvia Pfeiffer
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Dan Connolly <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/#standardisation-terminology
>
> I see:
>
> "This essentially means that only media type definitions (as registered
> through the process defined in RFC 4288) are able to introduce a
> standard structure on URI fragments for that mime type."
>
> so far so good; then...
>
> "The Media Fragment WG has no authority to update registries of all
> targeted media types. ... We recommend media type owners to harmonize
> their existing schemes with the ones proposed in this document and
> update or add the fragment semantics specification to their media type
> registration."
>
> Is there a plan to get that recommendation implemented? It doesn't
> seem responsible for W3C to Recommend the media fragments spec
> without some plan in place to get the IETF/IANA registrations
> updated.
>
> I suggest
>  (a) getting one or more IETF area directors to agree
>  to get the registrations updated
>  (b) making CR exit contingent on one or two of
>  the registrations getting updated
>
> The WG schedule currently has a fairly short CR period
>  http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/
>
> That makes a certain amount of sense given that I see
> fairly detailed discussion of test cases already.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Apr/thread.html#msg7
>
> So if plans are not already underway to get the
> registrations updated, I suggest getting started soon.
>
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E


I can offer to do an update of the Ogg RFC
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5334.txt with these fragment
specifications.

Though, to be honest, it will be easier to just get implementations
and then, if they catch on, update the RFC.

The reason that we can do implementations without much issues is that
virtually no other implementations of fragment schemes on media
resources exist. Even where schemes were developed such as at YouTube,
these schemes were not done on the media resource, but on the Web page
URLs. Also see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#ExistingSchemes
for a more indepth analysis of the state of affairs. The exisiting
MPEG scheme has not been implemented anywhere FAIK and would not clash
since it always starts with mp().

Cheers,
Silvia.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

Dan Connolly
+cc [hidden email] ;
thread begins at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Apr/0039.html

On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 09:32 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Dan Connolly <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/#standardisation-terminology
[...]

> > "The Media Fragment WG has no authority to update registries of all
> > targeted media types. ... We recommend media type owners to harmonize
> > their existing schemes with the ones proposed in this document and
> > update or add the fragment semantics specification to their media type
> > registration."
> >
> > Is there a plan to get that recommendation implemented?
>
> I can offer to do an update of the Ogg RFC
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5334.txt with these fragment
> specifications.
>
> Though, to be honest, it will be easier to just get implementations
> and then, if they catch on, update the RFC.

Well, that's a plan of sorts... but it's important to coordinate
that with the IETF. It's not polite for W3C to unilaterally
encourage implementations to deploy certain designs that will
constrain updates to IETF RFCs.

I wonder who to coordinate with from the IETF side...
The http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-types
page says it's owned/run by Harald Alvestrand and Mark Baker (distobj).
Does this play make sense to you?

Otherwise, Mark N., would you suggest anybody in particular
to coordinate with?

> The reason that we can do implementations without much issues is that
> virtually no other implementations of fragment schemes on media
> resources exist. Even where schemes were developed such as at YouTube,
> these schemes were not done on the media resource, but on the Web page
> URLs. Also see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#ExistingSchemes
> for a more indepth analysis of the state of affairs. The exisiting
> MPEG scheme has not been implemented anywhere FAIK and would not clash
> since it always starts with mp().
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
>


--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

Silvia Pfeiffer
Hi Dan,

Does the IETF have a mechanism to request mime type owners to update
their specs to integrate something like a fragment specification for
URIs? If so, that would be helpful.

Regards,
Silvia.


On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Dan Connolly <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +cc [hidden email] ;
> thread begins at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Apr/0039.html
>
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 09:32 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Dan Connolly <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/#standardisation-terminology
> [...]
>> > "The Media Fragment WG has no authority to update registries of all
>> > targeted media types. ... We recommend media type owners to harmonize
>> > their existing schemes with the ones proposed in this document and
>> > update or add the fragment semantics specification to their media type
>> > registration."
>> >
>> > Is there a plan to get that recommendation implemented?
>>
>> I can offer to do an update of the Ogg RFC
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5334.txt with these fragment
>> specifications.
>>
>> Though, to be honest, it will be easier to just get implementations
>> and then, if they catch on, update the RFC.
>
> Well, that's a plan of sorts... but it's important to coordinate
> that with the IETF. It's not polite for W3C to unilaterally
> encourage implementations to deploy certain designs that will
> constrain updates to IETF RFCs.
>
> I wonder who to coordinate with from the IETF side...
> The http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-types
> page says it's owned/run by Harald Alvestrand and Mark Baker (distobj).
> Does this play make sense to you?
>
> Otherwise, Mark N., would you suggest anybody in particular
> to coordinate with?
>
>> The reason that we can do implementations without much issues is that
>> virtually no other implementations of fragment schemes on media
>> resources exist. Even where schemes were developed such as at YouTube,
>> these schemes were not done on the media resource, but on the Web page
>> URLs. Also see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#ExistingSchemes
>> for a more indepth analysis of the state of affairs. The exisiting
>> MPEG scheme has not been implemented anywhere FAIK and would not clash
>> since it always starts with mp().
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Silvia.
>>
>
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

Mark Nottingham-2
In reply to this post by Dan Connolly
Well, ietf-types is important from a functional standpoint, but I don't know that it should be used to discuss the document itself. That sort of coordination should happen on apps-discuss and the URI list, I think.

Regards,


On 23/04/2010, at 12:19 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> +cc [hidden email] ;
> thread begins at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Apr/0039.html
>
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 09:32 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Dan Connolly <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/#standardisation-terminology
> [...]
>>> "The Media Fragment WG has no authority to update registries of all
>>> targeted media types. ... We recommend media type owners to harmonize
>>> their existing schemes with the ones proposed in this document and
>>> update or add the fragment semantics specification to their media type
>>> registration."
>>>
>>> Is there a plan to get that recommendation implemented?
>>
>> I can offer to do an update of the Ogg RFC
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5334.txt with these fragment
>> specifications.
>>
>> Though, to be honest, it will be easier to just get implementations
>> and then, if they catch on, update the RFC.
>
> Well, that's a plan of sorts... but it's important to coordinate
> that with the IETF. It's not polite for W3C to unilaterally
> encourage implementations to deploy certain designs that will
> constrain updates to IETF RFCs.
>
> I wonder who to coordinate with from the IETF side...
> The http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-types
> page says it's owned/run by Harald Alvestrand and Mark Baker (distobj).
> Does this play make sense to you?
>
> Otherwise, Mark N., would you suggest anybody in particular
> to coordinate with?
>
>> The reason that we can do implementations without much issues is that
>> virtually no other implementations of fragment schemes on media
>> resources exist. Even where schemes were developed such as at YouTube,
>> these schemes were not done on the media resource, but on the Web page
>> URLs. Also see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#ExistingSchemes
>> for a more indepth analysis of the state of affairs. The exisiting
>> MPEG scheme has not been implemented anywhere FAIK and would not clash
>> since it always starts with mp().
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Silvia.
>>
>
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

masinter
The URI spec says that the meaning of fragment identifiers depends on the Internet media type registration, but what didn't happen was to update BCP 13 (Internet media type registration procedure and template) to ask about how the registered  type interpreted fragment identifiers.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 5:35 PM
To: Dan Connolly
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer; [hidden email]; public-ietf-w3c; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

Well, ietf-types is important from a functional standpoint, but I don't know that it should be used to discuss the document itself. That sort of coordination should happen on apps-discuss and the URI list, I think.

Regards,


On 23/04/2010, at 12:19 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> +cc [hidden email] ;
> thread begins at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Apr/0039.html
>
> On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 09:32 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Dan Connolly <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/#standardisation-terminology
> [...]
>>> "The Media Fragment WG has no authority to update registries of all
>>> targeted media types. ... We recommend media type owners to harmonize
>>> their existing schemes with the ones proposed in this document and
>>> update or add the fragment semantics specification to their media type
>>> registration."
>>>
>>> Is there a plan to get that recommendation implemented?
>>
>> I can offer to do an update of the Ogg RFC
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5334.txt with these fragment
>> specifications.
>>
>> Though, to be honest, it will be easier to just get implementations
>> and then, if they catch on, update the RFC.
>
> Well, that's a plan of sorts... but it's important to coordinate
> that with the IETF. It's not polite for W3C to unilaterally
> encourage implementations to deploy certain designs that will
> constrain updates to IETF RFCs.
>
> I wonder who to coordinate with from the IETF side...
> The http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-types
> page says it's owned/run by Harald Alvestrand and Mark Baker (distobj).
> Does this play make sense to you?
>
> Otherwise, Mark N., would you suggest anybody in particular
> to coordinate with?
>
>> The reason that we can do implementations without much issues is that
>> virtually no other implementations of fragment schemes on media
>> resources exist. Even where schemes were developed such as at YouTube,
>> these schemes were not done on the media resource, but on the Web page
>> URLs. Also see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#ExistingSchemes
>> for a more indepth analysis of the state of affairs. The exisiting
>> MPEG scheme has not been implemented anywhere FAIK and would not clash
>> since it always starts with mp().
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Silvia.
>>
>
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

masinter
In reply to this post by Silvia Pfeiffer
Let me try to be clearer:

You say:

>"The Media Fragment WG has no authority to update registries of all
> targeted media types.

but I do think you have the authority to initiate such a change
by proposing an update to the BCP for registering media types,
and also proposing updates to the target media type registrations.

In order to make this change effective, of course, it will likely
require IETF consensus, but the proposed changes make sense and
improve the use of media types on the web.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 4:32 PM
To: Dan Connolly
Cc: [hidden email]; public-ietf-w3c
Subject: Re: plan for getting media type registrations updated w.r.t. media fragments?

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Dan Connolly <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100413/#standardisation-terminology
>
> I see:
>
> "This essentially means that only media type definitions (as registered
> through the process defined in RFC 4288) are able to introduce a
> standard structure on URI fragments for that mime type."
>
> so far so good; then...
>
> "The Media Fragment WG has no authority to update registries of all
> targeted media types. ... We recommend media type owners to harmonize
> their existing schemes with the ones proposed in this document and
> update or add the fragment semantics specification to their media type
> registration."
>
> Is there a plan to get that recommendation implemented? It doesn't
> seem responsible for W3C to Recommend the media fragments spec
> without some plan in place to get the IETF/IANA registrations
> updated.
>
> I suggest
>  (a) getting one or more IETF area directors to agree
>  to get the registrations updated
>  (b) making CR exit contingent on one or two of
>  the registrations getting updated
>
> The WG schedule currently has a fairly short CR period
>  http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/
>
> That makes a certain amount of sense given that I see
> fairly detailed discussion of test cases already.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Apr/thread.html#msg7
>
> So if plans are not already underway to get the
> registrations updated, I suggest getting started soon.
>
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E


I can offer to do an update of the Ogg RFC
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5334.txt with these fragment
specifications.

Though, to be honest, it will be easier to just get implementations
and then, if they catch on, update the RFC.

The reason that we can do implementations without much issues is that
virtually no other implementations of fragment schemes on media
resources exist. Even where schemes were developed such as at YouTube,
these schemes were not done on the media resource, but on the Web page
URLs. Also see http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#ExistingSchemes
for a more indepth analysis of the state of affairs. The exisiting
MPEG scheme has not been implemented anywhere FAIK and would not clash
since it always starts with mp().

Cheers,
Silvia.