Media Types in 3GPP Timed text draft (was: RE: [AVT] RTP
singer at apple.com
Tue Sep 7 13:55:21 CEST 2004
At 11:02 AM +0100 9/7/04, Colin Perkins wrote:
>On 17 Aug 2004, at 14:42, Jose Rey wrote:
>>Dave and I have been discussing this offline and come to the following
>>1.- it is not envisioned that the 3GPP Timed Text payload format will be
>>used for applications such as instant messaging or text
>>conversation, which do not precise of text decoration for working
>>properly, since there are other more appropriate media types
>>covering these usages, like text/t140. Hence, video/ is enough.
>I agree that this is not likely to be used for instant messaging or
>text conversation, although I don't understand why that would be
>relevant? Is this fundamentally text or a video codec? If it's a
>video codec, it should be under "video/", otherwise under "text/".
It's fundamentally for presenting visual information, but that visual
information is achieved by rendering text. It all depends on what
the meaning of "text codec" is...
>>2.- we are not clear on what exactly means to "relax rules for media
>>registration under text/". I.e. is text/t140 an example of these
>>"relaxed" rules or does it comply with the traditional rules as per
>>rfc 2046? Does the relaxed rules just mean that besides text also
>>payload headers of that media type are udnerstood?
>My understanding is that the new rules are intended to allow formats
>such as 3GPP timed text to be registered under the text top-level
>media type, if appropriate, provided their domain of applicability
>is clearly specified (e.g. the domain of applicability might be that
>the type is defined for transfer via RTP only).
for me, I don't mind which of text/ or video/ is chosen, provided it
is only one of them!
More information about the Ietf-types