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

Re: DFXP 1.0 Last Call issues list

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:06:21 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830909112206l49a30cfbgcbb1c5710d9fa9b7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: public-tt@w3.org, daniel.weck@gmail.com, werner.bailer@joanneum.at, Gur@captionsinc.com
Hi all,

Most of my feedback has been addressed.

Here is a short list of things that I think can still be improved.

However, I do not think any of this should stand in the way of moving the
specification to CR.


1. ttp:clockMode

There is still no example on what a specification that uses gps, utc and
local values would look like.

I am particularly worreid about the GPS time coordinates, for which the
format is not defined anywhere - not even in the given reference for GPS -
only when I do a bit of a search, I find
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/usno_head.html , but that format seems not to fit
with the rough description given in DFXP as:

"The primary difference between GPS time and UTC time is that GPS time is
not adjusted for leap seconds, while UTC time is adjusted as follows: UTC =
TAI (*Temp Atomique International*) + *leap seconds accumulated since 1972*.
TAI is maintained by the *Bureau International des Poids et Mesures* (BIPM)
in Sevres, France. The GPS system time is steered to a Master Clock (MC) at
the US Naval Observatory which is kept within a close but unspecified
tolerance of TAI."

Maybe it makes sense to remove the gps specification, since it's not
expected to be substantially different to UTC and since not specifying the
format properly will mean we won't get interoperable implementations of this
feature. However, I am not too fussed about leaving it in - it just won't
get used then.


2. Other requested examples as per
http://www.w3.org/2009/09/dfxp-lc-issues.html
 and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2009Jun/0020.html
would be helpful to add, but are not urgent, since they don't fundamentally
change the spec.


3. Section ordering
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2009Jun/0028.html
I am not overly fussed about, though I think the concrete suggestions I made
would be trivial to execute and would improve the readability.


4. Use of external metadata
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/2009Jun/0034.html
I may be blind, but I cannot see an example of foreign namespace metadata
from Dublin Core added in 12.1.1 of http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/, see
ISSUE-137.


Best Regards,
Silvia.


On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Getting onto it now - hope there is still time.
> Will give you feedback asap.
> Thanks,
> Silvia.
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> ... is at
>>  http://www.w3.org/2009/09/dfxp-lc-issues.html
>>
>> I'm trying to close the loop with Silvia on some of her issues. Besides
>> that, I believe we'll be all set to move to CR. If you believe I'm
>> missing something, please let me know.
>>
>> Philippe
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Saturday, 12 September 2009 05:07:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:43 GMT