W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > August 2012

Re: ISSUE-177: Monica: Clarify mandatory processing semantics referenced in Section 3.2.1. Consider whether to use Appendix D, Table E-2.

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 07:45:15 +0800
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+fwKBQ1q43SMKmjuamFEs6sc-tGoXKCdtLY6J7i+U8FVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Monica Martin (MS OPEN TECH)" <momartin@microsoft.com>
Cc: Timed Text Working Group <public-tt@w3.org>
OK, this looks good. I will implement this change.

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Monica Martin (MS OPEN TECH) <
momartin@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  The initial proposal for Issue-177 is:****
>
> ** **
>
> Add a link to Appendix D, Table E-2 that links the mandatory processing
> semantics to those of the mandatory features listed in Appendix D, Table
> E-2, see:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-ttaf1-dfxp-20101118/#feature-support.****
>
> ** **
>
> *”The processor supports all mandatory processing semantics defined by
> this specification in Appendix D, Table E-2<http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-ttaf1-dfxp-20101118/#feature-support>
> ** [link].”***
>
> ** **
>
> Monica****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:29 PM
> *To:* Timed Text Working Group
> *Subject:* Re: ISSUE-177: Monica: Clarify mandatory processing semantics
> referenced in Section 3.2.1. Consider whether to use Appendix D, Table E-2.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Timed Text Working Group Issue Tracker <
> sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:****
>
> ISSUE-177: Monica: Clarify mandatory processing semantics referenced in
> Section 3.2.1. Consider whether to use Appendix D, Table E-2.
>
> http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/177****
>
> ** **
>
> This is a catch all (boilerplate) clause that simply means that every
> statement in the specification that can be reasonably interpreted as a
> normative requirement on processing semantics must be so interpreted. We
> are not going to enumerate these cases. That is, enumerating would be
> equivalent to specifying all assertable requirements in the spec, which is
> not done in the W3C.****
>
> ** **
>
> So I would suggest we close this issue and take no action unless someone
> has a very specific proposal.****
>
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 23:46:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 30 August 2012 23:46:03 GMT