RE: RE: Time formats ( was TelCanto V1.1.3)

["Patrick Lidstone \(Personal E-mail\)" <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

------=_NextPart_000_02E2_01C5053E.6AD98A40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I would favour something which can be rendered in human readable form with
a
minimum of calculation.

It is easy for an intelligent device to convert hh:mm:ss.mm into unixtime
or
whatever. It is a bugger for a simple device to do the reverse for e.g.
display on an lcd. So let's help the simple devices, and keep the formats
simple and human readable.

Patrick


_____

From: Edward Pearson [mailto:edward.mailgroup@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 27 January 2005 22:55
To: xAP_developer@xxxxxxx
Subject: [xAP_developer] RE: Time formats ( was TelCanto V1.1.3)


Or how about SMPTE timecode format - or this a step too far?
This is what pro kit uses. It's quite cranky though being rooted in old
broadcast film/video standards.
I think I posted on this ages ago, might search the archive.

_____

From: Kevin Hawkins [mailto:lists@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 27 January 2005 19:33
To: xAP_developer@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [xAP_developer] TelCanto V1.1.3]


Does anyone have a view (xap-audio schema)  on whether we should
represent elapsed time or track length in an HH:MM:SS or MM:SS or other
formatted way or whether we should just present times as one number - in
ms    - which is my current favourite.  Although using ms resolution is
a bit of a nonsense in the sense of delay times on udp delivery the  use
of seconds is defintely too granular so it's the next logical step...
Having formatted times allows for easier display in a more human
readable format but it can be determined from the ms time.  Having ms
allows easier maths for remaining etc. Or both ??  elapsed=83000
formatted_elapsed= 00:01:23

Kevin





_____