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

RE: more profile confusion

From: Michael A Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 09:07:41 -0700
To: <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <081601cd43fe$81fedc50$85fc94f0$@newtbt.com>
I agree with the spirit of what you say.  But as drafted, the Recommendation is using a defined term, “profile”, so I disagree that it does not, as drafted, require a profile document.  That’s the issue.  Even if you read it differently, the point is that others read it the same as I do, and therefore it needs clarification.  I proposed “conforming subset or something more generic”.  How about “…and if the document interchange context does not specify a profile document, or other equivalent set of feature designators,…”

 

Whatever wording works for you is fine with me.  

 

Regards,

 

                Mike

 

 

From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:49 AM
To: Michael A Dolan
Cc: public-tt@w3.org
Subject: Re: more profile confusion

 

 

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Michael A Dolan <mdolan@newtbt.com> wrote:

Another troubling profile sentence in 5.2 was called to my attention:

 

If neither <http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#parameter-attribute-profile> ttp:profileattribute nor <http://www.w3.org/TR/ttaf1-dfxp/#parameter-vocabulary-profile> ttp:profileelement is present in a TTML document instance, and if the document interchange context does not specify a profile, then the DFXP Transformation profile applies.

 

A “document interchange context” might well fully define a conforming subset definition, but it may or may not formally define a “profile” as defined in the recommendation.

 

An instance document would more likely declare its conformance by some other means, such as reference to a schema, or using xml-model, or simply by its context (e.g. a branded MP4 file).

 

When we get to overhauling the profile language, we should fix the above, minimally replacing “profile” with “conforming subset” or something more generic that does not imply a TTML Profile definition is required.

 

Actually, I think I do not agree with this. The point of the above cited language is to ensure that the applicable profile is well defined, since it is necessary to know the applicable profile in order to perform processing in a compliant manner.

 

As reference to a profile defined/specified by a document interchange context is intended to serve as a out-of-band protocol to allow determination of which profile applies. It does not mean that a ttp profile document must be available for either author or client, it means that the information that would be included in such a document is known is some manner, whether or not it is defined in a profile file.

 

Finally, the phrase "conforming subset" has no formal meaning/use in TTML at present other than indirectly through the use of profile definitions.

 
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 16:08:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:06 UTC