Tag Archives: standard

Media fragment URI addressing

In the media fragment working group at the W3C, we are introducing a standard means to address fragments of media resources through URIs. The idea is to define URIs such as http://example.com/video.ogv#t=24m16s-30m12s, which would only retrieve the subpart of video.ogv that is of interest to the user and thus save bandwidth. This is particularly important for mobile devices, but also for pointing out highlights in videos on the Web, bookmarking, and other use cases.

I’d like to give a brief look into the state of discussion from a technical viewpoint here.

Let’s start by considering the protocols for which such a scheme could be defined. We are currently focusing on HTTP and RTSP, since they are open protocols for media delivery. P2P protocols are also under consideration, however, most of them are proprietary. Also, p2p protocols are mostly used to transfer complete large files, so fragment addressing may not be desired. RSTP already has a mechanism to address temporal fragments of media resources through a range parameter of the play request as part of the protocol parameters. Yet, there is no URI addressing scheme for this. Our key focus however is HTTP, since most video content nowadays is transferred over HTTP, e.g. YouTube.

Another topic that needs discussion are the types of fragmentation for which we will specify addressing schemes. At the moment, we are considering temporal fragmentation, spatial fragmentation, and fragmentation by tracks. In temporal fragmentation, a request asks for a time interval that is a subpart of the media resource (e.g. audio or video). In spatial fragmentation, the request is for an image region (e.g. in an image or a video). Track fragmentation addresses the issue where, e.g. a blind person would not require to receive the actual video data for a video and thus a user agent could request only the data tracks from the resource that are really required for the user.

Another concern is the syntax of URI addressing. URI fragments (“#”) have been invented to created URIs that point at so-called “secondary” resources. Per definition, a secondary resource may be some portion or subset of the primary resource, some view on representations of the primary resource, or some other resource defined or described by those representations. It is therefore the perfect syntax for media fragment URIs.

The only issue is that URI fragments (“#”) are not expected to be transferred from the client to the server (e.g. Apache strips it off the URI if it receives it). Therefore, in the temporal URI specification of Annodex we decided to use the query (“?”) parameter instead. This is however not necessary. The W3C working group is proposing to have the user agent strip off the URI fragment specification and transform it into a protocol parameter. For HTTP, the idea is to introduce new range units for the types of fragmentation that we will define. Then, the Range and Content-Range headers can be used to request and deliver the information about the fragmentation.

The most complicated issue that we are dealing with is the issue of caching in Web proxies. Existing Web proxies will not be able to understand new range units and will therefore not cache such requests. This is unfortunate and we are trying to devise two schemes – one for existing Web proxies and one for future more intelligent Web proxies – to enable proxy caching. This discussion has many dimensions – such as e.g. the ability to uniquely map time to bytes for any codec format, the ability to recompose new fragment requests from existing combined fragment requests, or the need and abilities for partial re-encoding. Mostly we are dealing with the complexities and restrictions of different codecs and encapsulation formats. Possibly, the idea of recomposition of ranges in Web proxies is too complex to realise and caching is best done by regarding each fragment as its own cacheable resource, but this hasn’t been decided yet.

We now have experts from the squid community, from YouTube/Google, HTTP experts, Web accessibility experts, SMIL experts, me from Annodex/Xiph, and a more people with diverse media backgrounds in the team. It’s a great group and we are covering the issues from all aspects. The brief update above is given from my perspective, and only lists the key issues superficially, while the discussions that we’re having on the mailing list and in meetings are much more in-depth.

I am not quite expecting us to meet the deadline of having a first working draft before the end of this month, but certainly before Christmas.