W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > May 2009

Re: TTWG minutes 05/08/09

From: Glenn A. Adams <gadams@xfsi.com>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 10:10:25 +0700
To: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C6344191.AAEA%gadams@xfsi.com>

minor correction below

On 5/15/09 5:10 PM, "Geoff Freed" <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> wrote:

> 
> Timed-text working group minutes 05/08/2009
> 
> GA:  Which of the two profiles (transformation and presentation) should be the
> default if none is specified in the doc?  I made the call that if nothing is
> specified, then transformation is in effect.  We might want to change that, or
> not.  The other issue is... which set of features are part of mandatory set?
> We really haven't discussed this yet.  We might want to change the features.
> We now have the mechanisms to easily change the profiles; may be worth
> considering that during LC, we will receive more scrutiny about this.
> 
> PH:  Do we really need a default profile?
> 
> GA:  There is some language in the spec now (Claims section, 3.3) that says if
> any compliance/conformance claim is made, it must specify either a TTP
> attribute or element.  Requires the author to be explicit rather than lazy re
> the specification of features.
> 
> PH:  Not against letting the author be lazy.
> 
> GA:  Wanted to allow levels of laziness.  Currently the author must be
> explicit, although is something of a middle ground.

I believe what I said is "author must be explicit IF they make conformance
claims about document"; the specification allows them to be lazy (and use
default) if they do not make any conformance claims; therefore, one can
interpret a document that is missing a profile specification as making no
conformance claims (with respect to profile);
Received on Saturday, 16 May 2009 03:11:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:42 GMT