- From: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 12:39:57 +0100
- To: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
- Cc: Mike Amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
[+mamund CHEZ yahoo POINT com] Dear Public-LOD, Thanks yet another time for your insightful comments. I will most probably go with the "FRBR-ish" approach then by giving my <video> elements an ID, sans explicitly using FRBR terms� <http://videos.example.org/#video> a ma:MediaResource . <http://videos.example.org/#video> ma:title "Sample Video" . <http://videos.example.org/#video> ma:description "Sample Description" . <http://videos.example.org/#video> ma:locator <http://ex.org/video.mp4> . <http://videos.example.org/#video> ma:locator <http://ex.org/video.ogv> . The whole discussion spawned off an interesting side discussion here and on Twitter [1] on how HTTP content negotiation and client-side "content negotiation" (note the quotes) works with <video>. Mike Amundsen (CC'ed) then built the bridge to Web images, where upon reading up on its history (/me too young) I stumbled upon this quote [2] from 1993: "Actually, the image reading routines we're currently using figure out the image format on the fly, so the filename extension won't even be significant." Interesting� Thanks again all on this thread for helping me out! Cheers, Tom -- [1] https://twitter.com/tomayac/status/408889842849054720 [2] http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0257.html -- Thomas Steiner, Employee, Google Inc. http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iFy0uwAntT0bE3xtRa5AfeCheCkthAtTh3reSabiGbl0ck0fjumBl3DCharaCTersAttH3b0ttom.hTtP5://xKcd.c0m/1181/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 11:40:46 UTC